17-55 vs 15-85 for walkabout use

<p>I'm looking for a standard zoom to complement my 70-200/4 L IS for use on my 50D, and have narrowed the search down to the 17-55 (or one of the 17-50 Tamron or Sigma variants) and the 15-85. I'm tending towards the latter for its greater range, but am a bit concerned about its variable aperture and also about its resolution at the long end.</p>

<p>Since I'll be using the lens exclusively outdoors, and mainly to photograph my young kids, I don't really need a fast aperture (I have a 5DII and fast primes for low light work) or outstanding border sharpness. Nevertheless, since I would often be shooting at f/3.5-f/5.6 with the 15-85, I am concerned about center sharpness and, to a lesser extent, bokeh.</p>

<p>It would be good to have a two-zoom walkabout kit (although I could just throw in a prime when I'm planning on going wider than 70mm). So my question comes down to this: Which lens would better complement my 70-200, the 17-55 or 15-85?</p>

<p>While I know that the 17-55mm is an excellent lens, the 15-85mm is also an excellent lens, one of my favorites to use on my 7D, actually. Read the review of the 15-85mm on <strong>the-digital-picture.com</strong>; it's a pretty thorough review. I highly recommend the 15-85mm.</p>

For the use you state I would get the 15-85.

I played with it once and was pretty impressed.

 

If you hesitate just try to rent or borrow it to see if it suits you. Nothing like trying equipment yourself.

 

M.

<p>Since you'll be using it outside most of the time, and shooting WO a lot, the better performer will definitely be the 17-55/2.8. Though WO, it doesn't seem quite as sharp as the 15-85 WO (at least across the center), WO is f2.8, not f3.5-5.6 - by f4, throughout the range, it is a sharper piece of glass. Personally though, the fixed fast aperture, and complementary focal range (to your 70-200) not the similar optical performance would make it my go to choice. That said, if you need as wide a FOV as possible, the 15-85 is the clear choice - trumping speed.</p>

<p>I'd go with this 2.8: <a href="www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074">www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074</a><br>

It's faster and if you are walking around with it you never know when you'll need the extra light and/or when you will want some 2.8 bokeh to blur out distracting elements in the background.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the 15-85, but I sold an embarrassingly soft 24-105 a couple of years ago to purchase the 17-55, and I love it. It's my walk-around lens and I use the f/2.8 a lot more than I thought I would. I have a 7D and my only other lens is the 70-200 f/4 and that combination has worked well for me.</p>

<p>I use the 24-105 f4L as my walk-around kid shooting lens. The f4 at the long end is useful and I find I don't use the wide end much anyway for kid shooting. The f4 at 100 mm is equivalent in DoF terms as f2.8 at 55 mm. Plus it will be compatible with your 5DII.<br>

55 mm is not much reach if your kids are moving or if they like to keep their distance from over-enthusiastic parents.<br>

That said I do pair it with a EF 10-22 when I want to go wide.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"[for my 50D] Which lens would better complement my 70-200, the 17-55 or 15-85?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If <em>I were you</em>, the 17 to 55 is the better choice of the two lenses because the non varying max aperture of the 15 to 85 would drive me nuts, but not for the reason you specified.</p>

<p>But as soon as you mentioned a '5DMkII', I would buy neither EF-S lens but rather seek a workable solution, within the EF lens camp: the 24 to 105F/4L IS appeals in this respect and maybe that means the 70 to 200 is not required (in that kit).<br /> BUT 17 to 24 is quite a deal of wide angle to sacrifice.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with either the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for your 50D. If you don't think you'll need the wider aperture of the 17-55, then it seems you've already decided! And the 15-85 is about $300 cheaper than the 17-55.</p>

<p>I chose the 17-55 last year, because I wanted a lens that I could take into museums and such and use the available light. It worked well for me in the Vasa Museum in Stockholm last August. Still, I had to bump the ISO way up to make the shots, but they came out well enough for my personal use.</p>

<p>On that trip, I was using a two-zoom kit, carrying the 17-55 along with my 70-300 Tamron SP. I did find, on occasion, that I could have used those intervening 15mm! You can't always walk toward or away from your subject, especially when you're on a tour bus/boat, or there are other restrictions to your movement!</p>

<p>I use the Sigma 17-50 and the 70-200 as my walk around kit. The combo works great! I ruled out the 15-85 because of its variable aperture and the wider option from the 17-50.</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone, for your insightful advice. I knew that I could count on the community for pointing out considerations I hadn't thought of, such as William's:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[A]s soon as you mentioned a '5DMkII', I would <a id="itxthook1" href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00aSgv" rel="nofollow">buy</a> neither EF-S lens but rather seek a workable solution, within the EF lens camp: the 24 to 105F/4L IS appeals in this respect and maybe that means the 70 to 200 is not required (in that kit).<br />BUT 17 to 24 is quite a deal of wide angle to sacrifice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It makes sense to me to avoid EF-S lenses and work with EF lenses, as I've been doing up till now. Losing 17-24mm isn't an issue for me, given my intended applications for the lens, but I had a 24-105, and was never entirely happy with it on my 5DII and 1V.</p>

<p>So I think the best course of action is to just stick with my primes in the 24-85mm range (I have four) rather than spend several hundred dollars on a lens I'll only be able to use on one of my bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Funny how the way info sometimes comes back without even askng. . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had a 24-105, and was never entirely happy with it on my 5DII and 1V.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Why weren’t you happy, please?</strong></p>

<p>This lens is one I have considered to buy as “my one lens solution for use outdoors for ‘family’ stuff” – I would use it on a 5D, 5DII (probably) but I have APS-C bodies, also, so I might use it on one of those.<br /> But I have never really been grabbed by that lens; and I don’t know why.<br /> I have only used the lens a few times.<br /> I have a 16-35/2.8 and 70 200/2.8, maybe it is about the 2.8 (subconsciously)?<br /> No, I don’t have and really never wanted a 24 to 70/2.8</p>

<p>I tend (and have always tended) to use a single Prime Lens, for ‘Family Stuff’ – it is just that I have been tossing around the idea of a 24 to 105, (for a few years).<br>

Thanks,<br>

WW</p>

<p>PS - and of course I meant to write:<br>

" . . .because the <strong>VARYING</strong> max aperture <strong>of the 15 to 85</strong> would drive me nuts . . ."</p>

<p>My 15-85 is sharp wide open, and nearly to the corners (just the very edges fall off a bit). If you don't need the speed, it is a great lens. I have no zoom creep. Bokeh is neutral. It's worth buying.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Why weren’t you happy, please?</strong><br />This lens is one I have considered to buy as “my one lens solution for use outdoors for ‘family’ stuff” – I would use it on a 5D, 5DII (probably) but I have APS-C bodies, also, so I might use it on one of those.<br />But I have never really been grabbed by that lens; and I don’t know why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>William, I can't really narrow it down to one aspect or issue, either. My 24-105 was decent outdoors in good light, but in lower light the images it produced looked tonally "flat" and just bland. I think that this was a combination of its lower contrast and resolution compared to the other lenses I was using. And its bokeh was very unpleasing to me.</p>

<p>I had and got rid of the 24-70 as well. It was certainly superior to the 24-105 in less than optimal light, and its bokeh was smooth, but it just wasn't as good as my primes. And, at almost a kilogram, it was heavier than I wanted it to be.</p>

<p>Thank you.<br>

Hmm. We are in agreement and also similarly to nail down a definitive is difficult for each of us.<br>

Thanks also for the comments about the 24 to 70 - that pretty much sums up my feelings - the weight is not so much of a bother. The 24 to 70 is an excellent lens no doubt and obviously a ‘perfect’ zoom range at F/2.8.<br>

But if I am going to pay to have F/2.8 available across that FL range: I would usually always choose sacrifice the flexibility of a zoom and carry two cameras each with a fast Prime and gain the lens speed advantage - and sometimes I carry a third Prime in my pocket.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>This is from my 15-85: http://www.photo.net/photo/15254672</p>

<p>The 15-85 lens is a fine one. If you really don't need a faster zoom, then it's a no-brainer. If you hesitate, how about the Tamron 17-50/2.8? Maximum f/5 from about 50mm and f/5.6 from 70mm upwards <em>is</em> quite a compromise. Also, it flips over from f/3.5 to f/4 just as you leave the 15mm mark, making it a pretty slow lens overall. I wish it had been a 15-55/3.5-4.5 and sized like the old full-frame 24-85 but it isn't.</p>