1st Post - 15-85 and 17-55 value vs cost

<p>Hello Friends,<br>

I joined photo.net today and this is my first post. I own Canon XTi + 18-55mm IS + 55-250mm IS lenses. I have saved enough and planning to buy a new lens in general purpose or standard range with budget between $800 and $1000.<br /> After long analysis (or rather series of confusion), I have arrived at following two choices. I am sure I do not want to go for anything other than this.<br /> <br /> <strong>1. Canon 15-85mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 USM IS</strong> <br /> Plus: Extra range on wider side. Excellent travel and general purpose lens<br /> Minus: Variable aperture range. Cost is high compared to features provided<br /> <br /> <strong>2. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS</strong> <br /> Plus: Throughout f/2.8. Sharpest images when compared to any other lenses in this focal length range.<br /> Minus: Nothing really, but I keep reading in reviews that cost is bit on higher side. No lens hood is one more sad part even after throwing $1000 or so.<br>

I need users comments to have more clear picture at the end of the day how does it work with body like XTi. Many say that 15-85 works excellent with 7D which is much higher in mpixel resolution than XTi. Not sure how much that matters..<br>

<em>I mainly shoot landscapes, travel, buildings, family gatherings, parties etc. Most of the time with good amount of light</em> <br /> <br /> I appreciate your time and guidance.<br>

<br /> Sanjeet</p>

<p>Only because you say you normally have a good amount of light I would say try the 15-85. I personally have the 17-55 and I do love the lens. If you have been getting by with the two lens that you have you should be fine with the 15-85 however all I see you gaining is the USM. If you want to gain more than just USM and actually get pretty darn sharp photos I would get the 17-55. It should be called an L lens. Then again, if you ever want to upgrade to a FF camera, you won't be able to use this lens. (thats where I'm at now) I would bet a lot of people are there right now which is also an advantage to people looking to buy this lens. you should start seeing a lot of these on sale used for about $300-400 savings.</p>

<p>Both are great choices. The primary differences can be reduced to f/2.8 versus -85mm. Beyond that, I don't know that any advice can help you meaningfully. I have the 17-55/2.8, and supplemented it with a 24-105/4L. For me, that's the perfect combination, despite the apparent overlap and duplication. I have a 7D, but don't believe the context is meaningfully different from your XTi.</p>

<p>The 15-85 comes closer to a do-it-all lens than the 17-55. The variable aperture is not so much a handicap as the f/4 or thereabouts in the middle of the zoom range, likely where you'll use it indoors for the family snaps. A good flash eventually will make that moot, along with the 17-55's f/2.8. Neither lens is really fast enough for the soft backgrounds you might want in a casual portrait. A 50/1.8 is a cheap enough to consider for occasional use in that role. The relatively high cost, for both, is pretty much in line with the image quality they deliver. I think you'll be happy with either, provided you can stop obsessing over how the other might have been better in some isolated use or another.</p>

<p>well, there's nothing more we can really tell you, you've laid it all out right there. Now its your decision, do you need speed or range?</p>

<p>IMO the 15-85 is a bit overpriced but couple it with a prime like a 28 1.8 or 35 2.0 and you have a very nice setup for almost anything.<br>

My main travel setup is a 5d2 24-105 and 50 1.4 and I will tell you the 28 to 24mm is a big difference on the wide end.</p>

<p>I liked them both equally. Choice depends on personal style and needs.</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs15-85.htm<br>

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm</p>

<p>I have Canon 17-55mm which is indeed a very good lens, especially if you shoot in low light conditions. But you mentioned that you generally work in good-light conditions. IMHO 15-85mm will be a good choice which gives you more range and some extra dollars in pocket.</p>

<p>also, you said you usually shoot with a good amount of light, and while you may not need the speed of the f/2.8, it will create better bokeh than the slower 15-85mm. If you like to isolate your subject this is something to consider.</p>

<p>Puppy, thanks for the great reviews. I remember your review of the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, helped me buy it, back in the film days.</p>

<p>So Puppy on the review of the 17-55 your wrote:<br>

"Although a little bulky and heavy, I find the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM a perfect travel lens for APS-C cameras," </p>

<p>If you had to choose, one of these lenses (17-55 vs. 15-85) for solely travel purposes (maybe general purpose), which would you choose nowadays?<br /> <br>

<br /> </p>

<p>Just get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC lens. As sharp as Canon's 17-55mm 2.8 but lighter and more compact. A perfect match for your XTi and a bargain at $469 USD. Spend the rest of your cash on a flash and take a trip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you had to choose, one of these lenses (17-55 vs. 15-85) for solely travel purposes (maybe general purpose), which would you choose nowadays?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was unable to choose so I bought both of them. I prefer the 15-85 when wandering the Oregon coast and the 17-55 for trekking through dark European churches and pubs.</p>

<p>I bought the 17-55 just before the 15-85 came out. Although it rarely leaves my camera the decision if made now would be very difficult for all the reasons you state. I think the 15-85 would just about edge it - although I have used the f2.8 occasionally to get the shutter speed for very-low light pictures of people (or other things that move), I think the extra reach would be more useful for me day-to-day. Using f2.8 in good light is about photographic style as much as anything and the difference in FOV between 15mm to 17mm can be significant.</p>

<p>I have the 17-55 and think it is one of the best lenses around. It compares well with any of my L lenses. It was? my preferred travel lens. I bought the 15-85 in a kit with the 7D and now have a problem. It is image quality wise on par with the 17-55 and has a more useful range. The f2.8 is however sometimes however very useful. When I travel again, I will take both, with the 15-85 my primary lens and the 17-55 for low light conditions.<br>

If I had to buy one lens, I will go for the 15-85 due to the range, unless I intend shooting a lot in low light conditions and do not want to use higher ISO.<br>

PS Both lenses are better than the 17-40L, which is not bad, and which I also still own.</p>

 

<p>Yeah, I was surprised the 15-85 was as good as the 17-55 in terms of IQ. Canon nailed it. If you don't mind the slow variable aperture, it's pretty fine for travel: relatively light and petite, fast focusing, high IQ, improved IS over 17-55 and ideal range. Unlike the 17-55, the 15-85 doesn't cast a lens shadow when used with the 7D popup (if you leave hood off). With all that said, it is not a handsome lens and closely resembles a plastic travel mug.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the only way to answer that question is to plan out what lenses you want to buy to complete your package, based on your own priorities, particularly on the telephoto side of things. If you plan on shooting mostly in the 17-55mm range and only occasionally need more telephoto, perhaps you'd be fine with buying the 17-55mm lens and the 28-200mm or something like that. If you expect to shoot telephoto frequently and want to buy only one more great lens to get you out to 200mm, you could buy the 15-85mm and a 70-200mm lens. That would be a sweet package, I would think. I really don't think it matters all that much, just plan it out ahead of time so you know about how much you're going to have to shell out to get what you want and how much space (and weight) it's going to take up in your camera bag.</p>

<p>Like another poster I went the Tamron 17-50 non IS route. I recently sold my 5d for a 7d and borrowed a friends 17-55 f2.8 Efs/lS lens as I presumed that would be the lens that "replaced" my trust 24-105 f4L. I thought image quality, color and contrast were excellent throughout the range, and can't imagine one being disappointed with the performance of the Canon, but I went the Tamron route for the following reasons- <br>

Price- got the non-IS version at less than half the cost of the Canon. I'd love to have IS, but really don't miss it at focal lengths less than 40mm or so.<br>

Build quality- the Canon shoots like a L lens, but it sure doesn't feel like one. While the lens seems physically huge given its focal range, I thought it felt "loose" and much more "plasticky" than other Canons I was used to. My friend bought the lens new and has used it for about 8 months, so that may account for some of it, but the difference in handling between that lens and my 24-105 was substantial. The Tamron feels much better, more solid, etc. There are reports of variation in quality with Tamron and other third party lenses, but mine is sharp across the range.<br>

Size- as noted, the Canon is huge, the Tamron, not so big. I didn't like the way the Canon's hood interfered with the on cam flash, but certainly other lenses do that as well.<br>

Erata- $1,000 and no hood? Boo Canon!<br>

Sorry to highjack this thread with an off-topic response.</p>

<p> </p>