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

Image quality on my 17-55mm was much better than my 15-85mm.

I even sent the 15-85mm in, but Canon sent it back saying it was in "acceptable limits".

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.

Yepyep.. Name a normal-range canon Zoom (can be L, or whatever) that out-resolves the 15-85 at similar/same focal lengths on the same camera...go! (There aren't any).

And yeah Kenji, I agree--the only real flaw is distortion at the wide end. However, we should be fair and point out that there is some CA at the longer focal lengths (noticeable from 75-85mm). However one click in DPP perfectly corrects it, meh.

vulcan2912 wrote in post #11746983
Hi

I've owned both and much prefer the 15-85.It all depends if you need the F2.8 or not.I found the "feel" of the 17-55 terrible.It feels cheap and horrible in use.So much so that I only kept it 3-4 weeks and then got rid of it and went back to a 24-105L.
I'm now using the 15-85 and it feels a whole lot better in use than the 17-55.It's a really solid piece of kit.It's very sharp with the only downsides being that it could use a zoom lock button and it can vignette horribly with the hood attatched.It is however one of the nicest hoods that Canon produce.

Gary

I've heard from some people that now that they have a 15-85, the 24-105 is not different enough to make it very useful. Any insight from Gary or others that have both?

raypil wrote in post #11772429
I've heard from some people that now that they have a 15-85, the 24-105 is not different enough to make it very useful. Any insight from Gary or others that have both?

I think it all depends on your needs and your resources. Personally I would probably not shoot both. If you're shooting either the 15-85 or 24-105 having a faster lens would be a more useful pairing. If you have the resources a few primes in that range would be great. You could even pick up a mid-range macro which would be 2-2.8 and would add macro to your kit and double as a prime.

OTOH, if you need weather sealing you need L glass or some protective device. Also, I like having a little overlap in my zoom range. This would be a lot of overlap though.

17-55. For life. That is all.

/end thread.

Just curious but how come on one brought up the 24-70 ? If you'd be willing to shoot with the 24-105 wouldn't the 24-70 give you the added benefit of 2.8 and the same length on the lower end. I also think that the IQ is superior compared to the 24-105.

Not sure if anyone has seen this youtube review of the 15-85.
Pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com …MbUBJH_Q0&featu​re=related