Thinking of moving from 17-55 to 15-85... advise needed...

you guys are funny. i never mentioned anything about the 17-55's build quality. actually i dont mind it. i used to baby my old 18-55 IS like its a $1K lens. only reason i went with 17-55 instead of the 15-85 is because of the f-stop. the range is not that limiting to me coz its already plenty wide at 17 and when i need longer, i just pull out the 70-200. when i used to have the 55-250, i find it that 55 vs 85 is not that much difference for me. but the 2.8 vs 5.6 on the long end is.

thanks again for the replies guys. like i already said, i will re-evaluate when my lens comes back from canon. im just glad that if i do swap out to 15-85, that i will not be disappointed.

artyman wrote in post #11747192
The 15-85 is a superb lens, it's only downside is it's not f2.8, however if you want fast you have to sacrifice versatilty. For me the 15-85 wins hands down

thats super sharp artyman!!! but if i get this lens i will be using it indoors a lot, paired with my flash. do you have any low light or flash shot samples?

Only if you need the reach or the build quality... The loss in light would be a pain in the, well atleast in my, ass!

diffuser wrote in post #11745252
Is the 15-85 really on par with the 17-55 IQ wise?

Yes, in regard to sharpness.

musashi wrote in post #11748066
thats super sharp artyman!!! but if i get this lens i will be using it indoors a lot, paired with my flash. do you have any low light or flash shot samples?

I have the 15-85 and i shoot indoors quite often (ie. parties, family gatherings, etc.) but i also do a ton of street shooting. When i am indoors i pair it with my 430ex and it gives me pretty decent results. But it definitely cannot beat flash gun + constant f2.8 indoors.

Evaluate if u shoot outdoors enough to warrant the change to get the extra wide end and the extra 30mm at the long end. For me it was easy because when i had the 18-55, i was always complaining about how restricting 18mm was n how short 55mm was. the 15-85 was a perfect fit and the USM was the just the cherry on top of the icing.

In low light, the lens focuses quite accurately and quickly, just about as fast as the 17-55 in low light. When shooting at nite, the quality of your pictures comes down to how u manage your settings and how you diffuse/ bounce the flash. A good mastery of these techniques will guarantee u get good pics indoor regardless of your lenses' aperture.

I have been kicking around this same idea recently, so it is interesting to read everyone's thoughts. My reason for considering the switch is a little different than the OP's -- I have added a 28mm f/1.8 prime to my kit for indoor use, so the f/2.8 of the 17-55 is no longer as big a selling point for me. The 15-85 would provide a better focal length match when traveling with either my 70-200 f/4 or 100-400L lens, and I may feel more comfortable leaving the 10-22mm at home, thereby lightening my traveling load.

I'm still not sure I want to give up the f/2.8 when traveling, though, as I generally leave the Speedlite at home. Most of my traveling photos are outdoors -- landscapes and wildlife -- but occasionally I have a need to shoot indoors.

Decisions, decisions.

diffuser wrote in post #11745398
No one doubts the quality of glass, but the fact that you're paying L glass price for non-L glass build is what gets to me, guess it's a psychological thing.

I've heard this before, but I disagree. You're paying for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS and USM. An L lens of that caliber would be easily 50% more expensive.

jaxn wrote in post #11748691
I've heard this before, but I disagree. You're paying for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS and USM. An L lens of that caliber would be easily 50% more expensive.

Not to mention that it doesn't exist!

The 17-55 is a great lens, though. I love mine but am also decided on some changes. I just added the 24-105L into the mix and have to decided what to swap out. I think the 17-55 is going to go, leaving me with the sig 10-20 to cover the wide and and the 30 1.4 to cover low light.

ofafeather wrote in post #11749063
Not to mention that it doesn't exist!

The 17-55 is a great lens, though. I love mine but am also decided on some changes. I just added the 24-105L into the mix and have to decided what to swap out. I think the 17-55 is going to go, leaving me with the sig 10-20 to cover the wide and and the 30 1.4 to cover low light.

I thought about this. But the thing that i came up with is that will be more lens changes that im willing to do. But for my needs, indoor or outdoor, 17-55 + 580 ex ii is more than enough. Less swapping lenses and more captured photos.

I don't do a lot of lowlight shooting and what's a flash I did shoot this in lowish light though

musashi wrote in post #11749111
I thought about this. But the thing that i came up with is that will be more lens changes that im willing to do. But for my needs, indoor or outdoor, 17-55 + 580 ex ii is more than enough. Less swapping lenses and more captured photos.

Kind of the same way I am thinking. My fast primes are going to be used more on action sport in low light gyps & special low light situations where the 2.8 just won't cut it.

The 17-55 + 580 ex II is a good combo.

I upgraded from the kit lens to the 15-85. I was able to use both the 17-55 and the 15-85 at the same time. My skills are limited, but as to my experience I noted the following on the XS body I had at the time.

I could not tell IQ apart at identical lens settings Contrast, and sharpness. both were far superior to the kit lens. I think they both out resolved the XS sensor

both lenses focused very fast, and accurate. I had no USM lenses previous to them so all I can say is that compared to what I had on hand - they were both lightning fast, telling the difference between the two was impossible for me.

I did notice that the 17-55 id flare more than the 15-85. I felt that 15-85 was more forgiving of photographer position if you're a little less experienced.

weight between the two was pretty close at least in a day of "real feel" type testing

outdoors, in the daylight both lenses are excellent. at night both also focus well, but the 17-55 produced nicer photos due to the larger aperture allowing lower iso all factors being equal. but again, when I was taking shots of the cookout. the yard lights and firelight created a few streaks in the image.

at the end of the day I went with the 15-85 for 2 main reasons:
1. for some reason the 15-85 felt like a more useful range for me - it wasn't until much later that I realized that the P&S I had learned on (first camera -ever) had a 35mm eq. zoom range of 28-140. no wonder. my only experience with cameras was a nearly identical range.

2. after looking at the kind of pictures I liked the most and kept the most often - I realized that I was likely for long into the future going to be a daytime outdoor fun-in-the sun photographer. with a little bit of indoor party and odds and ends snapshots mixed in. I had a good flash and know a little bit (well, a really little bit) of how to use it so for me the low light just wasn't as important as the range. 15-85 is an awfully handy range for the occasional family camping/travel weekend. The less stuff to take along, the better.

as I get better and add more challenging situations to my shooting, I will probably realize the added benefits of the larger apertures. Hwever for now I feel that a simple fast prime will take care of most of my current needs

The 15-85 isn't perfect. It isn't F2.8 and it isn't L grade, but it's sharp and has a range that makes it oh so convenient.

diffuser wrote in post #11745252
Is the 15-85 really on par with the 17-55 IQ wise? I have a hard time pulling the trigger for the 17-55 due to its sub-par build (for the price)...

Yes, The 15-85 is pretty much one of the sharpest lenses I've used...its optically absolutely astounding, the only weaknesses being a bit of distortion at 15mm (However, despite reviewers complaints, its normal for the class) and some vignetting

I happen to have this 100% crop handy

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​074449230/

I have a 17-55 and "had" a 15-85.

The quality of image of my copies did not compare.

I have passed on my 15-85, which was a decent lens.

But the 17-55 is not going anywhere...