At one point Canon put the gold ring on any consumer lens that had any sort of USM. (L lenses always have "Ultrasonic" in red, and of course the red ring)
Around 1998-1999 they stopped putting the gold ring on the newer versions of MicroMotor USM lenses.
Example: The 28-80 USM IV has the gold ring but the 28-80 V USM Oct 2000) and 28-90 USM (Oct 2000)do not.
Also the 75-300 USM has the gold ring while the 75-300 III USM(Apr 1999) does not.
Micromotor USM lenses still in production (70-300 IS USM and 50mm 1.4 USM) still retain the gold ring. Those may be the only two gold ringed MicroMotor USM lenses that are still in production.
All consumer Ring Type USM lenses still in production have the gold ring but, it appears that new designs such as the new 15-85 USM do not.
So who ever told you about the gold ring was partially right for new versions of lenses that were produced from about 1998 to today.
Tom_W wrote:
I think that this lens will be more comparable to the 28-135 IS USM lens as used on full frame. The difference being, this lens has a wider field-of-view on the wide end, and probably improved image quality (Canon has made some significant forward steps in that area, and have really improved their wide-angle offerings). In terms of build, it appears to be similar to that lens as well. The 24-105 f/4 L is of a higher build quality..
To me, 24mm AOV equivalence at the wide end is far, far, far, far better than 28mm!
wilt wrote:
To me, 24mm AOV equivalence at the wide end is far, far, far, far better than 28mm!
And? I prefer 24mm equiv as well because those extra 4 degrees on the wide end often eliminate the need to carry another superwide lens. But still, dropping the 17-55 for this slow boat to china would be like dropping the 28-80 2.8 L to pick up the 24-85 3.5-5.6 for the wide end.
The 17-55 is great for people and events (and lots else), while the 15-85 seems great for travel, landscapes, and nature. For some outdoor work, I could see the 15-85 and 100-400 being the only two lenses needed; whereas for other work, the 17-55 and 70-200 would be called for.
nads wrote:
And? I prefer 24mm equiv as well because those extra 4 degrees on the wide end often eliminate the need to carry another superwide lens. But still, dropping the 17-55 for this slow boat to china would be like dropping the 28-80 2.8 L to pick up the 24-85 3.5-5.6 for the wide end.
I'm really hoping that this lens is better at the wide end than the 24-85! (actually, it's an f/3.5-4.5) And I'm pretty sure that it will be. Canon's been really tending to the lenses lately.
Tom_W wrote:
I'm really hoping that this lens is better at the wide end than the 24-85! (actually, it's an f/3.5-4.5) And I'm pretty sure that it will be. Canon's been really tending to the lenses lately.
I'm really hoping too, but 17-85 and 18-200 haven't been optically very good. Both produce way too much CA. That's what I'm most worried about with the 15-85. It's a unneccessary pain to have to remove CA from every photo with Lightroom or PTlens.
arn_old wrote:
I'm really hoping too, but 17-85 and 18-200 haven't been optically very good. Both produce way too much CA. That's what I'm most worried about with the 15-85. It's a unneccessary pain to have to remove CA from every photo with Lightroom or PTlens.
Well, the 17-85 IS was basically a downscaled 28-135 IS - I don't think Canon put a lot of effort into that lens. They needed a "standard" zoom with something beyond what the 18-55 offered. My guess was that this was the easiest way to achieve that goal quickly. The 17-85 had one Aspheric element. The new 15-85 has 3 aspheric elements and 1 ultra low-dispersion element which ought to mean (no guarantees) that Canon is paying attention to the aspects of wide angle lenses that have been a problem.
Can't say much about the 18-200 - it's a lower-priced "super-zoom" that covers a very wide range, from wide angle to fairly long telephoto. It has 2 aspheric elements and 2 ultra low-dispersion elements, but the design of such a wide focal length range requires compromises. I suspect that controlling CA is much more difficult in such a lens than in a shorter-range zoom. I don't really expect as much out of a superzoom compared to a pair of less-agressive zooms that cover the range in 2 steps (say, an 18-55 and a 55 - 250 or something like that).
It's still, of course, wise to see some real-world results with this lens before making a purchase decision.
I'm thinking that Canon has stepped up their lens development as evidenced by the two tilt/shift lenses, the 24/1.4 II, the 14/2.8 II and a few others. They seem to have taken the wide end more seriously in the last couple of years.
Regarding the Canon 18-200, my copy at least, noticeably outperforms either copy I had of the 17-85 in the CA department. You can really only see it at 18mm in some shots and even then it's not bad. Stopped down one stop, it's sharp enough across the frame at all focal lengths for stock work. Wide open, it's sharp in the center, soft in the corners; no surprise. Extreme close-ups at 200mm are soft no matter what, distortion is heavy at some focal lengths and it doesn't have ring USM, so all is not perfect.
Overall, I've found the 18-200 to be superior to the 17-85, which gives me hope the new 15-85 will be a decent lens.
Tom_W wrote:
Well, the 17-85 IS was basically a downscaled 28-135 IS - I don't think Canon put a lot of effort into that lens. They needed a "standard" zoom with something beyond what the 18-55 offered. My guess was that this was the easiest way to achieve that goal quickly. The 17-85 had one Aspheric element. The new 15-85 has 3 aspheric elements and 1 ultra low-dispersion element which ought to mean (no guarantees) that Canon is paying attention to the aspects of wide angle lenses that have been a problem.
Can't say much about the 18-200 - it's a lower-priced "super-zoom" that covers a very wide range, from wide angle to fairly long telephoto. It has 2 aspheric elements and 2 ultra low-dispersion elements, but the design of such a wide focal length range requires compromises. I suspect that controlling CA is much more difficult in such a lens than in a shorter-range zoom. I don't really expect as much out of a superzoom compared to a pair of less-agressive zooms that cover the range in 2 steps (say, an 18-55 and a 55 - 250 or something like that)....Show more →
TBannor wrote:
Regarding the Canon 18-200, my copy at least, noticeably outperforms either copy I had of the 17-85 in the CA department. You can really only see it at 18mm in some shots and even then it's not bad. Stopped down one stop, it's sharp enough across the frame at all focal lengths for stock work. Wide open, it's sharp in the center, soft in the corners; no surprise. Extreme close-ups at 200mm are soft no matter what, distortion is heavy at some focal lengths and it doesn't have ring USM, so all is not perfect.
Overall, I've found the 18-200 to be superior to the 17-85, which gives me hope the new 15-85 will be a decent lens. ...Show more →
I also have the 18-200 as a walkaround lens (and I've taken thousands of shots with it). I'm not satisfied with wide angle sharpness and CA, it's not as good as it should be regarding those factors, but it is better than 17-85 (which was my previous walkaround lens but I got quickly rid of it). I do hope that the 15-85 is better.
TBannor wrote:
Regarding the Canon 18-200, my copy at least, noticeably outperforms either copy I had of the 17-85 in the CA department. You can really only see it at 18mm in some shots and even then it's not bad. Stopped down one stop, it's sharp enough across the frame at all focal lengths for stock work. Wide open, it's sharp in the center, soft in the corners; no surprise. Extreme close-ups at 200mm are soft no matter what, distortion is heavy at some focal lengths and it doesn't have ring USM, so all is not perfect.
Overall, I've found the 18-200 to be superior to the 17-85, which gives me hope the new 15-85 will be a decent lens.
I've never had an 18-200 so my analysis was partly speculative. I did have a 17-85 IS and was not fond of it's image quality. I noticed softish corners, and CA on that lens also. Too bad, because I liked the size and range and the fact that it had USM. It made a good, low-priced "standard" zoom on an APS-C body.
garyvot wrote:
DPP will take it out automagically.
I've often wondered why Lightroom is still lagging behind the original Rawshooter in some ways, like the CA removal... Rawshooter did have automatic CA removal. I guess I would use DPP for many things, if it wasn't for Lightrooms cataloging features - they help keep all my pics in order. It would be *easy* to do everything with Ligthroom, if it had automatic CA removal and lens distortion correction (pincushion/barrel). But sadly of course, it doesn't... I'll have to take a shot at DPP in the future for some of my post processing.
arn_old wrote:
I've often wondered why Lightroom is still lagging behind the original Rawshooter in some ways, like the CA removal... Rawshooter did have automatic CA removal. I guess I would use DPP for many things, if it wasn't for Lightrooms cataloging features - they help keep all my pics in order. It would be *easy* to do everything with Ligthroom, if it had automatic CA removal and lens distortion correction (pincushion/barrel). But sadly of course, it doesn't... I'll have to take a shot at DPP in the future for some of my post processing.
It's because Canon has taken the time to profile all of their lenses and build in the appropriate correction algorithms. Presumably Adobe could reverse engineer this feature, as they have done with everything else. The latest DNG specification includes some new data structures the seem to be for this purpose, apparently.
However, even if you use another RAW converter for image processing you can still use Lightroom as a digital asset manager to manage your catalog. However, I find I can also do most things in Adobe Bridge (including finding and searching on images in subfolders) and prefer Bridge for its more transparent integration with Photoshop and with the Windows file system.
