Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

larryvill wrote in post #11584476
Been reading that in the other forums, and from what I've gathered, it is soft wide open and you still need to stop it down to get sharpness. I notice that most of the primes in this range are having the same issues, that's why I considered 17-55 2.8. If 17-55 is sharp @ 2.8 then it is more sensible getting it than the primes.

Yah, I would really consider the 30 1.4 for those reasons, just giving you another option. The issues with it arent as frequent as you might figure just from reading these forums...

pdx_btk78 wrote in post #11585383
I'm in the same boat as a few folks here. When I was upgrading my lens, I was torn between the 17-55 f2.8 and the 15-85mm for a all purpose lens, and I ended up with the 15-85mm but kind of regret it now, as I begin to get into a lot of indoor low light situations and quickly discover that the 15-85 is just not good at all for that situation especially on pets.

My question is, is it worth it to try and sell the 18-85 and side step to the 17-55 f2.8 so I could use it for outdoor and indoor? or try to pick up another lens just for indoor? I do have the cheap 50mm f1.8, and it works awesome indoor, but the zoom is just a bit too much for what I need it for, I need to be able to be closer to my subjects while shooting.

I've also looked at some 24 to 35mm primes for indoor, but most of them are none IS, which kind of scares me and kind of holding me back from pulling the trigger, should it really be as big of concern?

Sorry, don't mean to thread jack, but I'd figure its along the same topic, so didn't want to create a new thread.

This is exactly what I went thru - to a T. I debated between the 17-55 & 15-85, picking up the 15-85 for the same reasons. Having the same doubts since purchasing. Had the 50 f/1.8, but it wasn't wide enough. And because camera shake had plagued me so much in my first year of shooting, I was scared to put a lot of money into a prime without IS. Then I went back and examined many of my pictures taken with the 50 1.8, No camera shake, lots of beautiful pictures with great results. And I do love the 15-85, so I didn't want to sell it to get the 17-55, as the focal length is something I didn't want to give up.. So I bought the 28 f/18 and have found lack of IS not an issue at all, the lens is very fast. And I think my kit will eventually be reduced and carry only these two lens, possibly keeping the 50 1.8.

So in answer to your question - I say keep the 15-85, get a wide prime and you should find that IS is not an issue.

Thank you~

I got both the canon 28mm f1.8 and the sigma 30mm f1.4 both up on my screen right now trying to decide which one. Both seems like a great deal and will do the job for indoor low light shooting. I have a question. Will the 28mm have too much picture distortion? i.e. make nose seem larger then it really is. I really want to get the 35mm f2 Canon, but I can find any with USM unless I step up to a L, which is out of my budget. Also what is the wides lens one can use before the distortion becomes noticeable?

Thanks again!

I also debated between the Canon 35 f/2, Sigma 30 and Canon 28. Went with the 28 due to USM and a little extra width. As for as distortion, there is some if you are too close. But that is way close, like a foot or so. Other than that, I have not noticed any distortion.

This I took of my grandaughter, I was just a few feet from her and no distortion at all.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

pdx_btk78 wrote in post #11586013
Also what is the wides lens one can use before the distortion becomes noticeable?

Wide angle lenses don't cause perspective distortion. Perspective distortion is caused by being too close to the subject. Just about any lens can introduce this problem, but ultra-wide and wide angle lenses are more prone simply because the photographer is tempted to get too close.

28mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses on a crop camera are considered "Normal" and will be fine at normal shooting distances.

Thanks, Mike!
Good to know....

Thanks! I will keep that in mind regarding picture distortion.

I went a head and ordered a Sigma 30mm f1.4 over the Canon 28mm simply because right now Amazon is offering a 10% off coupon code good through Jan 16th. I'd love to stay all Canon products, but I love to save money even more.

Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

gasrocks wrote in post #11587096
Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

It is sharp and has a very wide zoom ratio. No other lens can match it.

msowsun wrote in post #11587293
It is sharp and has a very wide zoom ratio. No other lens can match it.

this is true! I can post 100%'s if people don't believe it

Have a look at https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11580893&po​stcount=11

It boils down to do you want a 15-85 or do you want f2.8 decide which is more important, if you spend your life in dingy clubs then that answers your question

gasrocks wrote in post #11587096
Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

Why would anyone pay a lot of money for dozens and dozens of lenses that can't even autofocus? Come now, fair game.

I wouldn't imagine anyone would pay a lot of money for an 85mm F5.6 lens. But no one is talking about an 85mm F5.6 lens. Instead, we're talking about a 15-85mm zoom. With very effective IS that is very very sharp from edge to edge and that has excellent contrast and color rendition. The only IQ "issue" is some easily-corrected CA at the long end of the range. It is capable of resolving a higher level of detail than the 17-55 (even stopped down), and in fact out resolves a great many "excellent" primes (when they are stopped down). The real question is, if one is doing landscapes on a crop and needs something in this focal length range, why would anyone buy something else, unless they have a specific need for a fast aperture? Instead of attacking the people that have 'em, you should try one, you'll see why we like it, I promise!

@OP

I read a lot of reviews, on this forum and otherwise, of both kinds - opinions and backed-by-evidence, ones like photozone.de and looked at pictures (laptop monitor-size not large-print as I am assuming most of us do... could be so wrong). Anyway, I finally took the plunge and bought a Tamron 17-50 VC II f/2.8. Price-wise and aperture-wise, in the hope of getting the better of both lenses you are considering that all three provide almost similar IQ while realizing that there would still be a gap of 51mm-69mm in my lens arsenal.

I do understand that if I get a bad copy, having heard not-so-good stories about Tamron's service, my choice may turn out to be not-such-a-good one.

Posting just in case you want to gamble as I did.

gasrocks wrote in post #11587096
Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

I wouldn't, but then I know how to operate the zoom ring on a lens

What I did do was pay a moderate amount of money (£460) for a lens that goes from very wide to reasonable tele, is sharp wide open and has great focusing and IS. Every lens is a compromise, so it's just a question of what your priorities are - for me, the much wider range (and lower cost) were more important than the f/2.8 of the 17-55.