EF-s 15-85 review. But what's your personal experience?

[matthijs]

<p>Gentlemen,</p>

<p>Photozone has <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is">reviewed the new 15-85</a> lens and sees some good sides and some bad. A general improvement upon the older 17-85.</p>

<p>But has any of you used this lens themselves? What is your opinion?</p>

<p>(Me I'm still not sure whether I want this new lens, the 17-55/2.8 or the 17-40L... I'm going to use it for daylight cityscapes and close-ups of architectural details. I will not shoot UWA, not my cup of tea so 15 or 17 mm is wide enough.)</p>

<p>I hope to hear from you, Matthijs.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>My first question would be, "Is this lens even made in Japan?" I wouldn't buy a non-Japanese Canon lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Gee, I remember when people refused to buy that "cheap Japanese junk." Why do you think that a lens made elsewhere would not have the same quality control, etc. as in Japan itself? <br>

And as for the original post, I don't know of anybody yet who actually has their mitts on the new lens, but I had had high hopes for this one, and was somewhat disappointed in the review.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>JAPAN IS NOT CHEAP LABOR! Taiwan and Malaysia are poor countries and the labor is cheap there. Japan is not a poor country and is ahead of everyone in the world in electronics. It is not cheap labor at all, it is expensive labor and the quality is excellent. I've never heard anyone say, "that cheap Japanese junk" I think you mean, "cheap Chinese junk"</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>Cheap japanese junk would have been in the ~1950s era; at least according to back to the future part 3.<br>

<strong><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000502/">Young Doc</a> </strong> : No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan". <br /> <strong><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000150/">Marty McFly</a> </strong> : What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan. <br /> <strong><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000502/">Young Doc</a> </strong> : Unbelievable.</p>

[pto189]

<p><em>I've never heard anyone say, "that cheap Japanese junk". I think you mean, "cheap Chinese junk"</em><br>

You must be too young to hear "cheap Japanese junk". Read the his tory. </p>

<p><em>Taiwan and Malaysia are poor countries and the labor is cheap there. </em><br>

Taiwan and Malaysia aren't poor countries. Read the news.</p>

<p><em>It is expensive labor and the quality is excellent.</em><br>

Expensive labor doesn't imply excellent quality. Read...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Yes I am too young to remember, "that cheap Japanese junk," but it's 2009 now and it's not cheap anymore. </p>

<p>Maybe they're not poor countries, but they're cheaper labor than Japan.</p>

<p>No, expensive labor doesn't equal quality, but in Japan's case it does. They make good stuff. period. As much as I hate to buy non-USA made goods, I have to say that Japanese stuff is good quality. Most of our camera gear comes from Japan and I hear more people say "that $2000 lens is worth every penny" more than I hear "it's overpriced." Shimano is a big Japanese company that make expensive bicycle parts and fishing reels. I have used some of their products and can say they're worth it too. This is just another example.</p>

<p>Maybe if I read history, I'll hear the above quote, but that's exactly what it is, history.</p>

<p>As for this discussion post, take a Japan made Canon lens and a Taiwan made Canon lens. There will be no doubt which is better quality. Also, Im sure Matthijs would like to hear some feedback about his actual question instead of this side debate.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>No, expensive labor doesn't equal quality, but in Japan's case it does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sentence does not make sense! It is not about the cheapness of the labour but all about quality control and what store you set by the quality of the product. If you reject enough of the producton line the factory soon learns what it has to do to make money. Japan learned it in the 60s and China are learning it now - you only need to see the way the quality of Chinese-made hifi has improved astronomically to equal that (or even beat!) Western made products quality while maintaining a low price.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Yup.</p>

<p>An answer -or even an honest opinion- would have been nice.</p>

<p>Oh well: if that won't happen I'll just wait until The Digital Picture writes his review...</p>

[fmueller]

<p>Matthijs - I too would have been interested in some first hand experiences with the 15-85, but it's early days and not many people seem to have used this lens, and if so not extensively.</p>

<p>It also didn't help that Mr Gardner derailed your thread with a whole raft of nationalist BS. Taiwan cheap labor? Mr Gardner, it is indeed 2009 and you have missed the world news for some decades! In 2008, Taiwan was ranked number 42 in terms of GDP per capita ($31,100), which puts it just slightly behind Japan at 37 ($34,000). Hardly a poor country! (Source: <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Taiwan&countryCode=tw&regionCode=eas&rank=42#tw">CIA World Factbook)</a></p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks, folks for making it unnecessary for me to administer my much-feared Lesson in History.<br>

It does sound like nobody has got their mitts on one yet except for Photozone? Well, it'll be out in numbers soon enough, I'm sure. In the meantime, this one hasn't yet motivated me to trade in my 17-85mm IS, for which I am very sorry. Maybe there are better ones out there than the one Photozone got hold of?</p>

[fmueller]

<p>JDM - in a way it's a relief if the 15-85 is not tested too well. Like you, I am quite happy with my 17-85, but if the 15-85 turned out to be a stellar performer, I might be tempted to 'upgrade' anyhow. If the 15-85 is just ok, I will continue to be content with my 17-85 - and have a few hundred dollars more in my pocket ;-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, I suppose I should be glad too, since I am now shooting both with APS-C and 35mm sensor cameras. I like the 17-85 a lot, notwithstanding its "warts," and it would be tough to have to spend money on another lens that wouldn't fit on all my bodies.</p>

[matthijs]

Me I use a Sigma 18-200 non OS I'm not that happy with in the 18 to 40 range. Still lookingfor the best alternative...

[fmueller]

<p>If you want significant improvement in quality, as well as IS throughout the range, but not spend much money, get a 18-55 IS plus 55-250 IS. If you want to get better quality than you get with those two, you will have to spend A LOT more. The only disadvantage over the Sigma is that you will have to get used to changing lenses, but it's not half as bad as if you used primes, which is how I started out ;-)</p>

[mars c]

<p>Dont you know that there is also a review on the digital picture.com too? The new lens looks to be a stellar performer , optically .<br>

But for the price , I'd rather buy the 17-55 IS.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=251</p>

[matthijs]

<p>For 50 I have a 1.8 and a 1.4.</p>

<p>For 70-200 I have a F4L IS.</p>

<p>Longer than 200 I hardly ever need. I can crop and I have an 1.4x extender.</p>

<p>The lenses I have have me (and my girl) spoiled so now I want something better for 18 to 40-ish.</p>

<p>Money is always an issue, but not that much of an issue. 17-40L, 15-85 and 17-55 are all in range. Handling, contrast, maximum magnification and sharpness (in that order probably) however are an issue.</p>

<p>By the way; What's on The Digital Picture is noy a review yet. Not the way he does them normally anyway. But it does already contain a few of the pictures and measurements, that's true. (When I posted it only contained the measurements so I'm in the process of ogling the pictures and charts right now.)</p>

<p>The ISO chart sure looks nice. I look forward to the whole review.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm happy that this post gets some on topic reactions after the first wildly off topic discussion. Thanks!</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Woohoo, <a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=8895152">real life samples</a> !</p>

<p>I'm getting pretty interested...</p>

[mars c]

<p>Looking at the Digital picture test. If you look at the sharpness of the lens in relation to some know sharp lenses, The 15-85 must be above average in sharpness , If not one of the sharpest. And I never experienced a slow focusing ring USM lens either. So I think the test in the digital picture, If it is to be believed, Says alot about the lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, as of this writing, the Digital Picture "test" is only a set of test chart images. The actual "review" is promised.</p>

<p>While the 15-85 does look very good, you will also note that the old 17-85 to which it is compared is not too shabby either at this sort of pixel peeping. Despite claims to the contrary, caused by some confusion on what was happening, the complaints about the old lens were not its "sharpness" <em>per se</em> . I suppose what we will have to wait to see is whether the new lens is good enough to justify the price difference [some of which, to be sure, is because of the falling dollar :( ]</p>

[christian_bowman]

<p>I had made the toughest decision ever on purchasing this lens... My dilemma:</p>

<p>I have a canon 7D:<br>

I had to choose between:<br>

Canon EF 17-40L f4 - $950 AUD<br /> Canon EF-S 15-85 IS 3.5-5.6 - $999 AUD<br /> Canon EF-S 17-55 $1,350 AUD<br>

I needed a good walk-around mid-range zoom. I always knew the build and quality of the 17-40L would be the best of the bunch but the slowest and without IS and weakest range...<br>

The 15-85 I didn't know much about- only saw a sample at shop the day before- felt amazing and had the best range.<br>

I rely on speed- is 3.5-5.6 enough? that was the big question.. And was a 2.8 worth $350 more particularly because its EF-S and if i'm serious about things, will probably go full frame eventually.<br>

I chose the 15-85, i've previously used a 28-105 with much success on an old 5D mark1, and most times if i'm inside i was using flash. I have a 50 1.4 which means i have speed capability and I can't be focused on the future for todays decision on a lens BEST for this camera. I didn't feel however that the 17-55 2.8 was worth 350, especially because it's still an EF-S lens. I used the money saved to buy a hood and and put towards a grip and spare battery.<br>

I've used this lens extensively for a wedding at hayman island in australia, and it was just amazing to use. The extra 2mm on the wide and 30mm on the long end make a massive diffence. Vignetting is automatically fixed by the camera and i believe the distortion is quite low.<br>

The IS is really good, I'm really glad i forked out the extra for a hood. Definitely get a UV filter for this one, the element seems more vulnerable on this particular lens and for the price it's worth doing. It's the only lens I do this for.<br>

The EF-S build is a little daunting considering the price, not in terms of use, just the face that the entire internal mechanism is exposed from the back. Soemthing to be careful of.<br>

Lens is very sharp, USM is silent and fast, and IS is deceptively good- becareful because people don't sit still! Still objects, IS is just brilliant -1/15th isn't hard to get a stable static photo.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Christian, a bit belated, but thanks for the response!</p>