technic wrote:
IMHO the 15-85IS isn't sharp enough in much of the range / frame for the 24MP sensor of the 80D, let alone 32MP on 90D and M6II. It was a nice lens for the 12-18MP generation of sensors but really needs an update to see what the latests sensors can do. I still use the 15-85 on my 80D due to lack of real alternative, which is sad ... compared to e.g. the Nikon 16-80VR lens it is really an outdated design..
Your opinion does not match mine. I have had two copies of this lens and my wife has one. All three were excellent. Of course that is just an opinion based on minimal studies. So I checked the Imaging Resource review which gave it high marks overall and especially for sharpness. I then looked at Digital Picture lens comparator. I compared it with the EFS 60 macro which is another really sharp lens. The 15-85 outdid the 60 macro without any doubt.
My 15-85 has worked well on my 24 MP bodies. But yes, for years when the "What do you want?" threads come up, I've said I want a high quality standard zoom for APS-C. Something that would work well on the SL2, usually I use crop for reach and the G1X for std. The 6D2 + 24-70 works for me when I don't want to carry the 5D4. See I'm ready for the mirrorless apocalypse!
70D was probably when I last tried the 15-85 for video. The 90D with the 35 STM at 4K sounds attractive for panning scenery shots. Still have to figure out how to cut the dizzying ends off the videos where my thumb was searching for the stop button.
Camperjim wrote:
Your opinion does not match mine. I have had two copies of this lens and my wife has one. All three were excellent. Of course that is just an opinion based on minimal studies. So I checked the Imaging Resource review which gave it high marks overall and especially for sharpness. I then looked at Digital Picture lens comparator. I compared it with the EFS 60 macro which is another really sharp lens. The 15-85 outdid the 60 macro without any doubt.
You are talking about a lens test from 2009, that's the era of 12-15 MP bodies and basically irrelevant for current sensors.
Did you notice that they tested this lens on a 20D body, which has just 8 MP resolution
Jeff Nolten wrote:
My 15-85 has worked well on my 24 MP bodies. But yes, for years when the "What do you want?" threads come up, I've said I want a high quality standard zoom for APS-C. Something that would work well on the SL2, usually I use crop for reach and the G1X for std. The 6D2 + 24-70 works for me when I don't want to carry the 5D4. See I'm ready for the mirrorless apocalypse!
70D was probably when I last tried the 15-85 for video. The 90D with the 35 STM at 4K sounds attractive for panning scenery shots. Still have to figure out how to cut the dizzying ends off the videos where my thumb was searching for the stop button. ...Show more →
There is some excitement about the new kit zoom for Nikon Z50, just based on calculated MTF curves though. That lens is dim (half a stop slower than 15-85) and has less tele range, but it is also very small and affordable. I could accept such lens if it has significantly better image quality, especially with such size and price. But it remains to be seen if the excellent MTF performance is realized in practice, and probably this would only be possible for a ML camera and not for a DSLR.
The only DSLR standard zoom I know of that really beats the 15-85 is the Nikon 16-80VR; it is highly unlikely that Canon will waste money on producing such a lens for a dying line of bodies. Canon clearly wants you to buy a FF camera if you want the best quality
technic wrote:
You are talking about a lens test from 2009, that's the era of 12-15 MP bodies and basically irrelevant for current sensors.
Did you notice that they tested this lens on a 20D body, which has just 8 MP resolution
"irrelevant" ... not so sure. It would be technically not accurate (compared to say, 32 MP ... easy math @ 4X), but that doesn't necessarily infer a lack of relevance.
Wouldn't the resolving capability of the lens and a contemporary body of 32 MP necessarily be even better than that which a combination was capable from the 8 MP ... as a byproduct of the math (I forget the formula) from the increase in sensor resolution?
The optical projection hasn't changed ... just how many slices you're trying to cut it up. That, and now you're measuring with a micrometer instead of a yardstick. I mean, if you print a 20x30 from 8MP, and now you print a 20x30 from 32MP, how can it possibly get any worse? If it was good then ...
Camperjim wrote:
I then looked at Digital Picture lens comparator. I compared it with the EFS 60 macro which is another really sharp lens. The 15-85 outdid the 60 macro without any doubt.
TDP comps look pretty good @ 50mm on the 60D @ 5.6 (only one data point). Almost a dead heat in the center, maybe a minuscule nod to the zoom. A nod of resolution goes to the macro, as you move outward, but nothing that I'd complain about for the 15-85 (at that FL). The macro is better corrected, but again, the margin isn't earth-shattering.
Other FL's in the zoom range may fare differently, but first glance, the zoom starts of well and seems to have merit. It's a slow lens (aperture), but it doesn't necessarily look like a bad lens.
RustyBug wrote:
TDP comps look pretty good @ 50mm on the 60D @ 5.6 (only one data point). Almost a dead heat in the center, maybe a minuscule nod to the zoom. A nod of resolution goes to the macro, as you move outward, but nothing that I'd complain about for the 15-85 (at that FL). The macro is better corrected, but again, the margin isn't earth-shattering.
Other FL's in the zoom range may fare differently, but first glance, the zoom starts of well and seems to have merit. It's a slow lens (aperture), but it doesn't necessarily look like a bad lens.
I didn't say it's a bad lens, just that it doesn't do justice to current 24-32MP sensors and from EXTENSIVE experience I'm absolutely convinced about that.
As I said, maybe it's very good at some specific setting (yes very likely halfway the zoom range, stopped down 1-2 stops and with focus distance of 3-10 meters or so) but it sure isn't at the WA end in much of the frame, or when focused relatively close. Test charts shots tell you very little about real life performance.
RustyBug wrote:
"irrelevant" ... not so sure. It would be technically not accurate (compared to say, 32 MP ... easy math @ 4X), but that doesn't necessarily infer a lack of relevance.
Wouldn't the resolving capability of the lens and a contemporary body of 32 MP necessarily be even better than that which a combination was capable from the 8 MP ... as a byproduct of the math (I forget the formula) from the increase in sensor resolution?
The optical projection hasn't changed ... just how many slices you're trying to cut it up. That, and now you're measuring with a micrometer instead of a yardstick. I mean, if you print a 20x30 from 8MP, and now you print a 20x30 from 32MP, how can it possibly get any worse? If it was good then ... ...Show more →
Yes, the higher the resolution of the body the higher the measured resolving capability for the test chart with all other conditions identical. I never claimed the lens gets worse when using a higher res sensor ...
But no, testing lenses with sensors that are way lower resolution than current sensors (like testing with a 8 MP sensor when current sensors are 24-32 MP) will lead to unreliable evaluation of lens quality, unless you plan to never use your images at more than screen size (2-4 MP); just check the math ...
technic wrote:
I didn't say it's a bad lens, just that it doesn't do justice to current 24-32MP sensors and from EXTENSIVE experience I'm absolutely convinced about that.
As I said, maybe it's very good at some specific setting (yes very likely halfway the zoom range, stopped down 1-2 stops and with focus distance of 3-10 meters or so) but it sure isn't at the WA end in much of the frame, or when focused relatively close. Test charts shots tell you very little about real life performance.
Maybe you need to get a 90D and try the 15-85 on it before you claim extensive experience.
I did just that. I pasted a open spread of Outdoor Photographer on my garage wall. I shot far enough back and wide enough to cover about a 30" spread left to right. When I pixel peeped everything on the magazine was clear and sharp. That included illustrations and every letter in the text. Then I pixel peeped at high magnification and could see a faint fleck on the page which was a fraction of the size of a period mark. I could barely see that fleck close up wearing 2 diopter reading glasses.
I arrive at 3 possibilities: You have a bad lens. You are guessing. Or your standards are way, way beyond my highest expectations and uses for the lens.
And yes I tested the lens mid magnification stopped down at f/11 and higher. I expect some compromises wide open. which I rarely shoot, or when shooting at the lowest or highest focal lengths.
If you are looking for a substantially better lens, say something in the $2000 range, then you might also need to consider a high resolution full frame camera to achieve your expectations.
Camperjim wrote:
Maybe you need to get a 90D and try the 15-85 on it before you claim extensive experience.
I did just that. I pasted a open spread of Outdoor Photographer on my garage wall. I shot far enough back and wide enough to cover about a 30" spread left to right. When I pixel peeped everything on the magazine was clear and sharp. That included illustrations and every letter in the text. Then I pixel peeped at high magnification and could see a faint fleck on the page which was a fraction of the size of a period mark. I could barely see that fleck close up wearing 2 diopter reading glasses.
I arrive at 3 possibilities: You have a bad lens. You are guessing. Or your standards are way, way beyond my highest expectations and uses for the lens.
And yes I tested the lens mid magnification stopped down at f/11 and higher. I expect some compromises wide open. which I rarely shoot, or when shooting at the lowest or highest focal lengths.
If you are looking for a substantially better lens, say something in the $2000 range, then you might also need to consider a high resolution full frame camera to achieve your expectations.
Given that you are the same person who claimed the 90D is at least three stops better at high ISO than 80D (plus some other outrageous claims), and are testing a lens on 32 MP APS-C sensor at f/11 I don't need to guess
Substantially better (and at the same time brighter and lighter) lenses exist and e.g. that Nikon 16-80VR lens is only slightly more expensive than the 15-85.
technic wrote:
Given that you are the same person who claimed the 90D is at least three stops better at high ISO than 80D (plus some other outrageous claims), and are testing a lens on 32 MP APS-C sensor at f/11 I don't need to guess
Substantially better (and at the same time brighter and lighter) lenses exist and e.g. that Nikon 16-80VR lens is only slightly more expensive than the 15-85.
I am not sure about outrageous claims on ISO. I can tell you some of what I have found. First out of camera jpegs are very well corrected. I have consistently good results at ISO6400 and generally acceptable results at ISO12800. In both cases some extra sharpening helps. At 6400 with proper processing it can be very difficult to note any difference between the same image at ISO100. At 12800, there is some increase in softness and, depending on the image, color shifts can be hard to correct. Second, I had great success using the newest version of DPP. It handles high ISO raw and c-raw images very well. Adobe results were much worse, but I understand 2nd hand that Adobe has now upgraded ACR to improve results. I have also speculated that the improvements are largely due to improved processing. I do not think there is 3 stops improvement with the sensor but with proper processing at least with DPP results are at least 2 stops better than I could obtain with my T6s.
If you think these are outrageous claims, I can only say you don't know any better because you have not worked with the 90D or the DPP software.
While we are at it there is one more feature of the 90D that is a huge improvement. In the past I could not see much of any improvement with the Canon diffraction correction either out of camera or with DPP. With the new software and the 90D the results are impressive. I mentioned being able to detect a faint and almost microscopic dot on a 30" field of view. That not only happens at f/8 or f/11 but it is still there are f/18 and f/20. With the previous 24mp sensor on my T6s, diffraction was noticeable but slight at f/16 and considerable at f/20.
I should also mention that Lighthound (Dave) asked for files. I emailed them to him for analysis and he also remarked on the improvement in high ISO performance. That was a few weeks ago soon after the 90D was released. You can find those comments if you are interested but I believe you would rather go by your opinions.
Camperjim wrote:
I should also mention that Lighthound (Dave) asked for files. I emailed them to him for analysis and he also remarked on the improvement in high ISO performance. That was a few weeks ago soon after the 90D was released. You can find those comments if you are interested but I believe you would rather go by your opinions.
And I should mention the fact that I bought this little beast shortly after Jim shared those files with me.
One thing you need to keep in mind Jim.
There are those of us that get out there and test out the gear we come here to talk about and there are those who just set in front of a computer screen all day conjuring up their "opinions" of a product based on charts and graphs or by what they have read mostly by others that are doing the exact same thing, without ever even picking the product up.
And for the record, unless I missed it, Jim has never said the 90D is 3 stops better than the 80D at high ISO. That in itself seems to be an "outrageous claim".
Perhaps it's time to head on over to those greener Nikon pastures you keep raving about Technic and put an end to your pain and suffering using your worthless Canon gear.
Seriously, you have done nothing but complain about your Canon gear for at least 2 years now and you seem to take every opportunity you can find to mention how much better a Nikon D500 would be or how much better a Nikon lens or yep, even how great the A9 is and on and on and on.
Seeing your absolutely stunning work you do with dragon flies, it baffles my mind everytime I hear you complaining about how Canon sucks. How in the hell can someone take such incredible images with such shitty gear? You must be some kind of savant or god's gift to photographers to be able to pull off those amazing shots with such shitty gear.
STOP being miserable and DO IT! Move on. PLEASE!!!!
For most of us and I assume yourself included, this is suppose to be a fun and enjoyable hobby. You sir are clearly not happy and are not enjoying yourself with your Canon gear, so move on to where you are happy. You're getting old and time is too short to be as miserable as you seem to be.
I got to admit I was also getting frustrated with Canon. I have always been happy with my lenses, but my T6s was a disappointment and I kept hoping for another upgrade that was worthwhile. Now I am really pleased with the 90D. The jump in resolution and improved focusing and improved high ISO performance are all very noticeable. That is just gear talk. It is indeed the results that I appreciate. I can finally use AF reliably at macro distances. I now feel comfortable being able to use auto ISO when needed. I don't have any hesitation on bumping up to f/20 when I need the DOF. I don't shoot much at night but I put bulb timer on my custom menu. My T6s was really frustrating for bulb. I could not see the timer without using a flashlight.
I'm glad to see y'all getting some enjoyment out of the 90D. Similarly, I'm enjoying the M6 ii. Went mirrorless this time, but that's Ok. I would say that both are pretty doggone good cameras.
Tom_W wrote:
I'm glad to see y'all getting some enjoyment out of the 90D. Similarly, I'm enjoying the M6 ii. Went mirrorless this time, but that's Ok. I would say that both are pretty doggone good cameras.
+1 @ both of these latest releases being equally nice rigs.
I recall Canon saying in an interview earlier this year that they were going to let their customers decide when asked if SLR days were over and if mirrorless was going to be the only platform on their road map.
This is exactly what they have done with these twin siblings. I must admit, I'm ready to go mirrorless and the M6II made it a difficult choice this time around.
I'm still holding out hope that there is going to be a mirrorless 7DIII in the spring.
lighthound wrote:
+1 @ both of these latest releases being equally nice rigs.
I recall Canon saying in an interview earlier this year that they were going to let their customers decide when asked if SLR days were over and if mirrorless was going to be the only platform on their road map.
This is exactly what they have done with these twin siblings. I must admit, I'm ready to go mirrorless and the M6II made it a difficult choice this time around.
I'm still holding out hope that there is going to be a mirrorless 7DIII in the spring.
I'm kind of running parallel systems. My 5D4 is my main camera, but branching out into mirrorless and having a great crop sensor pushed me to the M6.
If they ever do a 7D3, I'd be willing to bet it'll have this or something derived from this sensor.
lighthound wrote:
+1 @ both of these latest releases being equally nice rigs.
I recall Canon saying in an interview earlier this year that they were going to let their customers decide when asked if SLR days were over and if mirrorless was going to be the only platform on their road map.
This is exactly what they have done with these twin siblings. I must admit, I'm ready to go mirrorless and the M6II made it a difficult choice this time around.
I'm still holding out hope that there is going to be a mirrorless 7DIII in the spring.
Hmmm ... if the interview stands as valid, there may bode some hope for the 7D III.
I figure if they release the 7D III (with a strong upgrade) ... their customers will SCREAM that SLR is NOT over.
Of course, if they release a 7D III and 7R simultaneously ... ooh, tough call, depending on how good the AF tracking is on the 7R. That, and whether or not they put IBIS in. Imo, until Canon puts IBIS in the MILC, they are leaving folks a compelling reason to be in the "why bother" camp. Sure, there's a new lens lineup coming down the pike and some good stuff already out, but functionally the lack of a gain in IS continues to leave folks lukewarm / meh about MILC.
Just came back from a nice fall hike, shot the 90D with the 70-200/4L IS v1. Sure beats carrying around a 1DXII and got great reach thanks to the APS-C crop. A quick review of the images revealed that a 32MP APS-C sensor is very demanding of lenses... I very much like the 70-200 on FF though it's not perfect with respect to across-frame sharpness. The 90D's sensor seems to really amplify all lens characteristics, good and bad. Sharpness is certainly there, but I'm also seeing a lot more softening in corners and/or uneven across-frame sharpness. It seems for some of my lenses, it may mean stopping down into diffraction territory for best overall sharpness, giving up some micro contrast.
