Surely it has to be good to command the $1600 asking price for a non-L lens.
Very ex but very nice. But a bit of dust magnet unfortunately.
Very ex but very nice. But a bit of dust magnet unfortunately.
17-55 vs 15-85 lens
- Thread starter kohpee
- Start date
- Status
The built is really not great if he is comparing with L lens.
Hahaha.... but are you buying a L lens when you buy 17-55mm ?? While I agree that its more $$$$ than some L lens like 17-40mm.... but Canon had NEVER said 17-55mm is under L listing.
The closest L with f2.8 when compare to 17-55mm is either EF 16-35mm or EF 24-70mm.... which both cost about 2x that of 17-55mm. I don't mind the 17-55mm not having L built quality as long as I could afford it..... But of course, that just me. :bsmilie:
50 f1.4 has better build quality for sure. abt image quality i don't know, i never used the f1.8. i think its better to skip the 1.8 if your budget allows. the f1.4 version is pretty sharp from f2 onwards and excellent from f2.8 while the f1.8 is only sharp from f2.8 (which is pretty much like the 17-55 f2.8) and thus defeating the purpose of getting a prime instead of the 17-55. anyway how's the 15-85? sharp? i was wondering if i shld still get it? so many people are telling me its not worth it to buy that - at least not now when its still new. =/
Go straight for the 50 f/1.4 if budget allows. It's gonna be long term and it feels much better using it. IQ wise, I don't think it will make a huge difference for the average user. The bokeh effect is more eye pleasing though.
Get the 50 f/1.8 and you will still be asking yourself if you should get the 50 f/1.4.
of all the 50s...i read that the 50 f1.4 is the best value for money. so might as well just get it - unless u wanna really go all out at the 50mm. man, i wish i were using FF. canon's primes are made for FF. i wld get the 24L, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8...sweet. no zoom can beat a prime in terms of the large aperture and the depth field/bokeh.
I actually have both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 on hand now. Have been lazy to post the f/1.8 for sale. Couldn't stand handling the plastic f/1.8 toy and got the f/1.4 within 2-3 months of purchasing the f/1.8. Nevertheless, it is still a great lens to use for the budget conscious.
Like you, I am now adopting the wait and see approach before deciding to get the 15-85 or not.
Hmm... Don't think I will ever go to FF. Too bulky and heavy for my liking.
Frankly I think the build quality of the 17-55 is crap compared to the newer 15-85/18-135 lenses which have a tighter and yet smoother zoom ring.
Cartman2000
Senior Member
The 17-55mm build is solid enough for me, probably because I seldom use L lenses and am satisfied with anything built better than a kit lens..but if I needed something that could rough it out(actually how often do SGporeans need such hardy equipment when they're shooting in controlled environments), I wouldn't mind using the 17-55mm
If I needed a 50mm f1.4 prime, I'd get the Sigma
Canon's one has AF issues ranging from minor to severe.
If I needed a 50mm f1.4 prime, I'd get the Sigma
Canon's one has AF issues ranging from minor to severe.Thanks for the info, will seriously consider the f/1.4 if budget allows. :bsmilie:
As for the 15-85, I am happy with the IQ, no complaints. Typical comparing of lens will never end so for me, I am contented with what I have.
Most will comment that the price tag of 1.1k for 15-85 is too high (which I tends to agree as well) when to 17-85 (600+) and I have also receive comments "may as well go for 17-55, just add 400+ more" but imho, what's important is buying what you need. The 400+ saved can go to f/1.4 in my case.
You can wait for the rage to cool down, I am sure price will go down, just a matter of time and your needs.
woah, that coming from a 17-55 user...i think i have to believe what he said. i've used the 17-55. yes the build is rubbish cuz i compared it directly the 24-70. actually even the 18-55's build is better. the 17-55 got horrible zoom rings. the elements inside seem to heavy for the exterior to control. =/ u ever handled the 15-85 before? i've never. i went down to shops but they dun have any to let me try try unless i wanna buy 1.
The 17-55mm build is solid enough for me, probably because I seldom use L lenses and am satisfied with anything built better than a kit lens..but if I needed something that could rough it out(actually how often do SGporeans need such hardy equipment when they're shooting in controlled environments), I wouldn't mind using the 17-55mm
If I needed a 50mm f1.4 prime, I'd get the Sigma
really? so far i've had no problem. can explain to me what's the problem? my fren is satisfied with his 50 f1.4 too. and he has been using it for 2 years.
Thanks for the info, will seriously consider the f/1.4 if budget allows. :bsmilie:
As for the 15-85, I am happy with the IQ, no complaints. Typical comparing of lens will never end so for me, I am contented with what I have.
Most will comment that the price tag of 1.1k for 15-85 is too high (which I tends to agree as well) when to 17-85 (600+) and I have also receive comments "may as well go for 17-55, just add 400+ more" but imho, what's important is buying what you need. The 400+ saved can go to f/1.4 in my case.
You can wait for the rage to cool down, I am sure price will go down, just a matter of time and your needs.
haha i'm actually quite irritated by the poor image quality the kit lens is producing. it's not sharp enough to be pleasing. =/ since i've purchased the 50 f1.4 i think i have to wait 2-3 more mths before getting a new lens. 15-85 is definitely top of my list. wad i really need is a versatile walkabout. i'm also considering 24-105 but this lens is gonna be 5 yrs old. i'm sure it will be replaced pretty soon. give it another 2-3 years, it will be replaced. the 24-70 is being replaced soon according to CR, so i believe the 24-105 will too. most probably launched tgt with the 5DIII.
I don't think so. The 50mm F1.8 MKII is release since late Dec 1990 and there is no replacement yet.
Chill bro... I wasn't saying that the build quality is bad. I was saying it's not great as in it's not as solid as some other Canon lenses in the same price range. But I also don't care so much about build quality as long as the lens performs well, and the 17-55 is one super sharp lens. It may even be sharper than my 24-70. And no lah, the 24-70 is not twice the price of the 17-55. It's more like 1.5x :bsmilie: The reason I bought my 24-70 was because the 17-55 wasn't out yet when I bought it. At the time, it was kinda the fastest Canon walkround lens available.
24-70 has been available since 2001 or 2002. And the news of the new version coming out, with IS and stuff is really pissing me off haha
- Status
Similar threads
