17-85 vs 15-85 (picture quality, focus acuracy, IQ)

[sanjeet_vaishnav]

<p>I started with 17-55vs 15-85.. and realized I do not need f/2.8 and do not have those extra $$.<br>

Now the confusion is 17-85 and 15-85 are almost same/similar in terms of picture quality/sharpness. Both has USM, IS.. range also is almost same (I don't want that 2 mm on wider side).. still, 17-85 is MUCH cheaper than 15-85. (I refer to PZ and TDP reviews)<br>

I mostly use as travel or walk-around lens in good day light, mostly between f/4 and f/8<br>

I am not able to convince myself why Canon is charging extra bucks on 15-85.. has it got something excellent which 17-85 is missing?<br>

I need your views, am I missing anything in analysis?</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Those extra 2mm at the wide end are costly. Also, the 15-85 is a f/3.5-5.6 lens whereas the 17-85 starts at f/4. Still, yes, the 15-85 really should cost around $625, just like Nikon's equivalent. Maybe it will some day.</p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>nice review here <a href="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_15-85_17-85_sigma_18-125.htm">http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_15-85_17-85_sigma_18-125.htm</a> you can see for yourself if its worth it</p>

[ed_v.]

The latest prices for the 17-85 make it very compelling. When I bought mine back in 2008 they were listing new for over US$600. I picked mine up refurbished for $429. Nowadays you can get a refurbished one for $325. Give the 15-85 a couple of years and we'll probably see the same percentage price drop (assuming exchange rates don't change).

 

That said, I don't think the difference in price is worth the difference in quality--at least for me. That's why I haven't upgraded yet. Maybe in a year or so...

[JDMvW]

<p>What Canon themselves have to say about the differences and advantages of these lenses is interesting. They state that the 15-85mm is substantially improved over the 17-85mm<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2010/01/"> (link),</a> (scroll down) but of course everything new always is, I guess. I personally have the 17-85 and am pleased with it, and since I shoot both with 35mm and APS-C sensor cameras, I will not rush to upgrade it, since I have also got the 24-105mm L lens to use on both. When I go out only with APS-C bodies in hand, this is the lens I always carry, however. The older lens was more like an APS-C version of the very fine 28-135mm IS lens, but the newer one covers farther down on the wide end, more like the 24-105mm.</p>

<p>The price of the 15-85mm is listed at ¥105,000 (sold separately) and the price (I know not if original or most recent) of the 17-85mm was ¥87,000 (sold separately), about 20% higher. So some of the increase is simple inflation, but some is also the poor history of the US dollar in the last 5 or 6 years.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I haven't look at the reviews you mention, nor have I been following these two lenses particularly closely; I already have the 17-55/2.8 IS USM and 24-105/4L IS USM so I have no personal interest in either of the lenses you're considering. But I'm pretty sure a lot of the user comments I've seen going by about the 15-85 suggest that it is better, optically, than the 17-85. If those user comments are correct (and user comments should always be taken with a grain of salt unless you know the person has a solid track record), that's one thing you're getting. As someone else also pointed out, adding even a couple of millimetres on the wide end of a lens can be tricky, which translates as "expensive."</p>

 

<p>There's also the new-and-shiny premium. Whenever Canon introduces a new piece of photo gear, the price starts high; people who feel they simply must have the latest and greatest pay extra for that. After a while, the price starts to drop, and typically continues to drop for up to a few years. The 15-85 is new and shiny and therefore costs more. The 17-85, which was at one time the newest and best consumer-grade standard zoom in Canon's lineup, is no longer either the newest or the best, and has had several years to lose its new-and-shiny premium.</p>

[rubo]

<p>My friend has the 17-85mm and i've shot quite a lot with it. It's a decent lens, but it's not even close to the sharpness and contrast of the 15-85mm.<br>

I just got mine and couldn't be happier. It's at it's best wide open. it is very sharp and contrasty (for a zoom lens). The IS is good for at least 1 stop more than both 17-85 & 28-135 and you can't notice whether it's on or off (my old 28-135 you could see the image jerk a little when it would kick in).</p>

<p>One thing i noticed is @ 15mm the focus is not very accurate if the subject is further than 30ft away. Not sure if it's my copy or if it's my XSi, or may be it's just too wide to be able to focus precisely with XSi.<br>

Starting from around 22-24mm the focusing issue disappears and it's dead on.</p>

<p>Just my $.02</p>

<p>P.S. If you are willing to wait a couple of days, i'll get out and take some test shots to post here, so you can see for yourself. Haven't had any time to spend with my camera, too much work :)</p>