Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I've done some researches and found out that the 15-85mm F3.5-85 is a better lens than the 17-85 F4-5.6; it is sharp to the corners even with a wide open aperture and has many L lens qualities including three aspherical elements and one UD glass element. I would like to know which of the 2 you would buy and the reasons for it.

At ~$600 used for the 15-85, I'd save a few more bucks and get the 17-55 instead.

15-85 is a better travel range though. 17-85 can be had at half the price. It is pretty nasty if you shoot jpegs, as it needs a whole lot of corrections, I'd go with 15-85 for travel, 17-55 is better, but you need a 2nd lens

Thanks for the responses guys! Thought I rent the 15-85mm to try out this weekend, didn't realized that they gave me the 17-85mm by mistake. The conclusion is I don't like the 17-85. Still have to try out the 15-85 at another time to find out. Maybe I'll try out the 17-55 too.

Be careful of reviews that say "as good as L quality" for a few reasons. The biggest reason is they're usually written by people justifying the purchase they just made and the vast majority of the time it's just not true. Sorry, but it's not. Although it is possible for non L lenses (or non whatever high level) to perform very very well they perform better than the pro level maybe 5-10% of the times they're claimed to. People have a hard time admitting they didn't get the best and make excuses for it or aren't honest about what the gear can do as if it's a personal affront to them. This does not necessarily detract from either of those lenses nor does it mean you can't get great shots from them. For anyone looking to cite examples where non Ls are wonderful, yes yes, you made a good purchase and your lens is very nice.

Anyway, since you already own a 10-22 AND a 17-40L I'm not sure why you're looking at those two, though, you often confuse me Alice. I'd sell the 17-40 and pony up the extra for a 24-105 or, better yet, a 24-70 if I were you. Both are better than the two you listed and will hold their value well. Then your range is covered from 10 to 105/70 except for 23mm. Crop factor included. But I've told you this before... The 17-55 may be a very good fit for you too, you should look into that as well.

What the hee? Alice often confuse you??? All you know from the last waterfalls outing was Alice owns a 10-22 AND a 17-40L and she's looking to either get another lens or switch the 17-40L for a lens with bigger zoom range. How's that possibly OFTEN confuse you? Alice appreciated your suggestion of the other 2 L lenses, however if the 15-85 is really "as good as L quality" as advertised, then this would be a perfect lens for her, as PotatoEYE mentioned it's a better travel range. If this is the case, then all she needs is a 10-22, a 15-85 & a 70-200.

Another perfect combo for Alice would be the 10-22 for landscapes and the 24-105 for portraits and other situations. Thanks for the suggestion Chris!

Yeah Chris, what's so confusing about a person talking in a 3rd person about themselves?

PotatoEYE, hypothetically two lenses lay on a table. One is the 15-85 the other is a 24-70/24-105(they're both better so it doesn't make a difference). You can only pick up one to have, which would it be?

Note, there are no obscure manual lenses that require modification to choose instead!

I will not pick any out of the three..... I go for 28-70 2.8 'L' ..... something that even u have $$$ u still can't buy it.

It was the BEST lens Canon ever made.

I'd go for 17-55

24-70/24-105 on a non full frame body is no longer 24, it's 34.

10-22 is for landscapes, not an ideal lens for shooting people and buildings, so can not be used as the common use lenses like the 17-55/15-85.

Given the choices I'd pick the 500mm f/4L IS II for sure.

17-55 > 15-85 > 17-85. Sharpness, distortion, colour.

First the math, 10-22 on a crop is also not 10-22, it is roughly equivalent to 16-35 on a 1.6 crop. A 24-70 is roughly 38-112. Thus, the range is still covered no matter what the numbers or sensor. Something I have pointed out far too many times to count. Numbers written on lenses are what they'd be on 35mm (full frame), that number is then multiplied by whatever the crop factor is to get the equivalent.

You're wrong about the 10-22. It is, in fact, a great lens for buildings. Distortion isn't too bad and it's wide enough to get buildings in. As for shooting people it's fine for travel shots with a wide background for environment portraits. Neither the 17-55 or 15-85 are particularly great portrait lenses, the 24-70 isn't really either though all three can work. Depends on your idea of portrait. Personally I like the longer lenses for portrait, 85 prime, 70-200, 135. None of these are going to make great travel portrait lenses because they isolate their subjects too well, unless of course you stop down.What's the point of portrait in Paris with Paris blurred out? Again, this massively depends on what type of portraits you're after. For landscape the 10-22 is "ok", the range is right but there are other issues beyond what you need to think about.

For Alice I think a 50mm glued to her camera until she gets the hang of stuff is what she needs, but if a general zoom is a must sell the 17-40 and go with the 17-55.

Separate to this and what Alice needs, I prefer the 24-70 over the 17-55 for two reasons. The first is it resolves subjects from backgrounds better even though it's not as sharp overall. The second reason is build quality. The net is flush with stories of internal dust and zoom creep on the 17-55. Plus the bonus of weather sealing.

Alice does not need your opinion on this!!! The subject of this thread is Canon 15-85mm vs 17-85mm which is a better lens. If you can't follow the rule, leave this thread alone!

Ok, between those two just flip a coin. For you it will make no difference.

One thing I recently encountered was the issue of the 15-85 I have is not the same sharpness as the 15-85 a friend of mine has. I use mine a lot for events. It's a decent range and is good on a crop body. I recently tried out his lens to compare how if the focus on his was better than mine as his was not used as much, had less dust and smudges on his more expensive filter. I have a $3 UV filter on mine and the results are striking how much better the images from my 15-85 are compared to his.

When it comes to reviews, it's never perfect. You never know whether you will get a lens that will be comparable to another person's. There's usually a manufacturer tolerance for quality control for any product.

Though there's a whole other issue of not all bodies are created equal (in terms of same model vs same model). I've had issues with differences in exposure shooting the same subjects with the same lighting, settings, lens, etc. I first encountered this with older Nikon cameras, but also notices this with Canon too.

If you can get a 17-55 lens, go for that is you are mainly looking for best sharpness. If you want the most range go for a 18-135 or 18-200 if you are on a budget and want a lot of zoom. Though, in terms of results, the best bet is to go with primes as it's not hard to move forward or backward from a subject to get a shot in most situations. The 17-85 just don't bother. Hell, the 18-55 kit lens is better sharpness than both the 15-85 and 17-85 from my experience, I just like having the option to go a little wider at 15mm in cramped situations and also quickly zoom in at other times.

First off I would like to point out that the Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is the only Lens with 19 elements in 12 groups (3 aspherical elements and 1 super-UD element), 7 blade aperture, not the 15-85 f3.5-5.6 lens as stated above in the original post.
The EFS 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM has 17 elements in 12 groups, 6 blade aperture
And the EFS 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM has 17 elements in 12 groups, 6 blad aperture as well.

It is my opinion that if the OP has the money, it would be well worth it to buy the EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS lens as it is the fastest of the three, most likely a better build than the other two, and is one of the best street lenses out there for a 1.6 crop camera. I just shot NYC with this lens for the last week and can attest first hand to its sharpness, speed in low light situations and it's overall build quality.

Lubin & SENNA5, thanks for sharing your experiences and the helpful information that you're providing here. Obviously, 17-55 wins all the way, can't go wrong with it. Thank you both again!

To the newly TPMG Administrator ions aka Chris, your qualities well demonstrated through your posts.

Well done! You have successfully discourage even more people from posting and participating!

Goodbye!

I agree. Bye.

Seriously Alice?

You asked for advice on a vs b, neglecting that you might not be aware of better options than those.
Chris was NOT the only one to suggest a lens other than the two which you listed.

Knowing absolutely nothing about Canon glass I honestly agree with the guy.
If you have a 10-22 (which is f**king fantastic for both people and building photography), and a 17-40, why on earth would you ADD so much overlap?
You want to carry more weight?

I think you need to take a step back from the keyboard and extract some good out of the posts above, as there is a lot of good for you in this thread. If you disagree, fine. But you asked for information and some people have met you here and know your gear and are tailoring advice for you.
If you don't want any more information then stop reading this thread.

But otherwise a "new" user to the forum should be heavily encouraged by the amount of information posted here, and hopefully they will not be so discouraged by both the attitude you've presented and then one that Chris has returned with.

Every one take a chill pill and take some photos!

Thank you Alex.

The 10-22 at the 18-22 range on a crop factor makes a good lens for people and building add to that a 24 to 105L lens and you can go anywhere. Even on a crop factor body the 24 to 105 is a dynamite lens, best lens I have ever had for general purpose and travel. And when you eventually buy a full frame you don't have to buy new glass. Personally I find the old design of the 17-40L not up to the standards of other L lenses.

precisely not $300-$400 up to the standards of other L lenses

well I am very new to photography and have learned 5 new things today!