Mike Sowsun wrote:
The 17-55 has an older "3-Stop" IS while the 15-85 has a newer "4-Stop" IS. That basically removes the f/2.8 advantage for stationary subjects like buildings.
bought one on saturday and spent the morning with it on my 50D, together with a 17-55 borrowed from my dealer. I shot mainly JPG's with both, sharpness and image quality look virtually identical to me shooting in the same conditions. On the 15-85 the 55-85 range shows IQ decreasing, but nothing really to worry about. at 24mm looks stellar, even better than the 24-105 also because the 15-85 has no distortion there.
some issues at 15mm, resolution looks excellent but it has quite a bit of distortion (haven't tried to correct it in CS4 yet) and some vignetting and CA (as usual easily correctable in post-production).
build is really good, way better than the 17-55 and the zoom ring is really tight! perfect as a walkaround lens, also tried a couple of outdoor portraits and macro shots and the bokeh looks decent (better for macro shots).
totally satisfied by the first shots, if you don't need 2.8 it's absolutely the way to go!
bluedevil42 wrote:
bought one on saturday and spent the morning with it on my 50D, together with a 17-55 borrowed from my dealer. I shot mainly JPG's with both, sharpness and image quality look virtually identical to me shooting in the same conditions. On the 15-85 the 55-85 range shows IQ decreasing, but nothing really to worry about. at 24mm looks stellar, even better than the 24-105 also because the 15-85 has no distortion there.
some issues at 15mm, resolution looks excellent but it has quite a bit of distortion (haven't tried to correct it in CS4 yet) and some vignetting and CA (as usual easily correctable in post-production).
build is really good, way better than the 17-55 and the zoom ring is really tight! perfect as a walkaround lens, also tried a couple of outdoor portraits and macro shots and the bokeh looks decent (better for macro shots).
totally satisfied by the first shots, if you don't need 2.8 it's absolutely the way to go!...Show more →
I agree with all points.
I do really like the built, the quality of the zoom and AF control and, of course, the IQ. The AF and IS are truly great. I think it's the first "walk-around", take-it-anywhere lens that I'm really happy with.
I wish all life's dilemmas were as pleasant as this one. The trip to Europe is very special considering our financial situation and probably the last considering the value of the dollar v. Euro.
Thanks for all the input. Bluedevil42's idea to try them both in likely situations is the no-brainer. Yakim's kit is very enticing. It comes down to how much I am willing to carry and how much time in "photo mode" v. "tourist" mode
p.12 #14 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
omarlyn wrote:
...I only have ten fingers & ten toes...so it's hard to count all the way to 65!
There is an ancient aboriginal culture I have read about (I forget which one) that only has three numbers: "one," "two," and "many." I don't know if their early ancesters were all missing fingers and toes, if they were taught to count by a sloth, or what, but I have often resorted to their system when asked "How many ______ do you have?"
p.12 #15 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
BrianO wrote:
There is an ancient aboriginal culture I have read about (I forget which one) that only has three numbers: "one," "two," and "many." I don't know if their early ancesters were all missing fingers and toes, if they were taught to count by a sloth, or what, but I have often resorted to their system when asked "How many ______ do you have?"
"Many" I say, and that's close enough.
Probably not by a sloth or they would have one, two, three (number of toes on a sloth) and many!
p.12 #16 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
rtallent wrote:
...Probably not by a sloth or they would have one, two, three (number of toes on a sloth) and many!
I don't know; I have ten fingers, and count with a base-10 system. A sloth would probably use a base-3 system, not a base-4. (And not a base-6, because it needs one hand to hang onto the branches with.)
p.12 #18 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
Yakim Peled wrote:
You are a 65 lenses kinda guy.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
and several bodies too...
The specs on this lens look dismal outside of its MTF.
Nevermind the 5.6 at 85mm... 3.5 at 15mm?? It should be at least 2.8 with IS, and it should come with a hood and carrying bag. Oh yeah, and it should have a red ring on it's focussing element - not to mention, an L somewhere on it. :P
p.12 #19 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
I decided to go for this lens even though I have the 17-55 2.8. It's the weight factor more than anything else, given that the IQ seems to be good according to the reviews. We are off to France on Monday and if I take the already heavy 17-55 I will probably want at least one or two more lenses to add to the range. But 15-85 means that I can get away without. This does count when you are shlepping a bag full of bits round the Paris museums (no you can't leave a 7d in a hotel room!) One or two lenses less reduces the number of filters, hoods etc and less changing over etc etc. I will use DPP to correct the vignetting (it works pretty well).
One point. Those who want 2.8 constant aperture along with everything else need to consider the laws of physics. A lot of glass needed to enable big zoom ranges with big apertures. This is why the 17-55 is heavy, and a 15-85 F2.8 will be a real brick. My vertebrae are already grumbling at the mere thought of it! Then there's the cost of all this high quality glass so my Visa card is out in sympathy with my back !
p.12 #20 · EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS master thread
I brought my 15-85 as my only lens on a 40D for a long weekend in NYC and found the range outstanding, focus was fast and dead on. I was not disappointed at all. I was getting sharp shots at 1/15 or so with the IS in the Met museum. Its a really fun focal length.
In my own defense, let me say that I only have ten fingers & ten toes...so it's hard to count all the way to 65! 