17-55 vs 15-85 lens

[Shen siung]

The problem with 3rd party lenses is in the event your cam and lens are not calibrated to work well together.

Canon will NOT verify your cam body focusing with your 3rd party lens.

Neither will 3rd party lens manufacturer check your Canon cam.

Exaggerated? Nope. I have seen it.

From my experience, Sigma SG will help to calibrate Sigma lens with any camera body.
For Tokina, Cathay Photo actually asked me to send in my lens (without body) and the person said "we will see...". But at that time I just asked.

 

[auden09]

From my experience, Sigma SG will help to calibrate Sigma lens with any camera body.
For Tokina, Cathay Photo actually asked me to send in my lens (without body) and the person said "we will see...". But at that time I just asked.

thats good. when u guys say calibrate...do u mean re-chipping the lens?

 

[Shen siung]

thats good. when u guys say calibrate...do u mean re-chipping the lens?

I don't know much about calibration, but it should not be like that. A Sigma calibration usually able to finish within 2-3 hours, upon prior appointment.

 

[soons]

thats good. when u guys say calibrate...do u mean re-chipping the lens?

Or rather re-programming the chip to a preset that might suit your body more.

 

[auden09]

ic...thanks for sharing. but after what i read here:

Originally Posted by muvouser
The problem with 3rd party lenses is in the event your cam and lens are not calibrated to work well together.
Canon will NOT verify your cam body focusing with your 3rd party lens.
Neither will 3rd party lens manufacturer check your Canon cam.
Exaggerated? Nope. I have seen it.

i'm thinking harder.

 

[zenhora]

Get the 15 - 85mm

1) Difference in IQ is comparable if not slightly better than 17 - 55 mm
2) For all purposes that you've stated, 15 - 85mm focal length suits you - 15mm for landscapes and 85mm for sports
3) f2.8 vs f3.5 -5.6 not much difference since you are not really shooting portrait (and if u really wanna shoot portrait get a prime lens...for the larger aperture)
4) Lastly you are using 7D, it has the best low light iso capabilities among all canon APSC cameras so the lack in aperture advantage can be overcomed with it

 

[Cartman2000]

Get the 15 - 85mm

1) Difference in IQ is comparable if not slightly better than 17 - 55 mm
2) For all purposes that you've stated, 15 - 85mm focal length suits you - 15mm for landscapes and 85mm for sports
3) f2.8 vs f3.5 -5.6 not much difference since you are not really shooting portrait (and if u really wanna shoot portrait get a prime lens...for the larger aperture)
4) Lastly you are using 7D, it has the best low light iso capabilities among all canon APSC cameras so the lack in aperture advantage can be overcomed with it

I question the validity of point 1. Btw, there is a big difference between f2.8 and f5.6(biggest aperture of the lens at 85mm). The 17-55mm can be stopped down from f2.8, but the 15-85mm can never be stopped up to f2.8.

 

[zenhora]

I question the validity of point 1. Btw, there is a big difference between f2.8 and f5.6(biggest aperture of the lens at 85mm). The 17-55mm can be stopped down from f2.8, but the 15-85mm can never be stopped up to f2.8.

Well, I'm basing my conclusion from

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

However, it is assuming their tests are well established standards.

It is true that at 85mm f5.6 is alot of difference. TS needs does not reallly require f2.8 though?

ultimately is what Ts need so TS just sharing my opinion.

 

[auden09]

f2.8 isn't necessary. 15-85 and 17-55 are both excellent lens. both have comparable optic qualities, both got UD glass inside. they are made by canon for avid hobbyists. initially there was only the 17-55 with UD glass, and due to the fact that there are a lot of people who just want an excellent walkabout lens with UD (without the f/2.8), canon created the 15-85. if 15-85 was given f/4 constant or f/2.8...the price wld be greater than what it is now by leaps and bounds. so to keep the cost of this efs lens low, f/3.5-5.6 was implemented. this aperture range is pretty alright for most crop body owners looking for a sharp walkabout. 15-85 is a good walkabout range too. thus, i conclude that the 15-85 and 17-55 are made for different purposes and should not be compared directly against each other. i wish that the 15-85 was f/4, then it can be comparable to the 24-105 vs 24-70. even with IS the 24-105 is significantly cheaper than the 24-70 already. it should be the same for the 15-85 vs the 17-55. i'm sure if 15-85 was f/4 constant...it would be an instant hit with almost everybody. paired up with any prime or the 17-55, you can shoot day and night.

 

[An drew]

I question the validity of point 1.

Well, I'm basing my conclusion from

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

However, it is assuming their tests are well established standards.

If you compare the 17-55 and 15-85 at different focal lengths at this site, you will see that the 15-85 is sharper than the 17-55 at all focal lengths with both lenses at their maximum apertures. This is of course not an entirely fair comparison as the apertures are different. The difference is negligible if you stop down the 17-55.

But the 15-85 has a 5.7x zoom while the 17-55 is only 3.2x. So I think the 15-85 would be a better walkaround lens as it has a wider range, opens up wider to 15mm, sharper, cheaper and lighter but perhaps a little overpriced. Since you can increase the ISO, smaller aperture is less of an issue. Just that you can't get the f2.8 bokeh of the 17-55, which is quite nice.

 

[auden09]

actually if u can wait and u haf moolah...wait for the 24-70 IS...i believe it wldn't disappoint. and besides it wld be a good investment cuz lenses can last a long time. 8 years if u base it on the 24-70 product cycle.

 

[FriedKimchi]

actually if u can wait and u haf moolah...wait for the 24-70 IS...i believe it wldn't disappoint. and besides it wld be a good investment cuz lenses can last a long time. 8 years if u base it on the 24-70 product cycle.

Why do people consider lenses as investments? They don't generate income for most photographers anyway, no offence.
Back to topic, i would go for the 1585 lens in a heartbeat, i can live without the constant f/2.8 aperture.

 

[auden09]

Why do people consider lenses as investments? They don't generate income for most photographers anyway, no offence.
Back to topic, i would go for the 1585 lens in a heartbeat, i can live without the constant f/2.8 aperture.

yeah 15-85 is a great lens for the walkabout purposes. no lah its not abt generating income. it's like buying a car u noe? u want a car which can sell well after the years and yet still be up to date thru out the years you are using it.

 

[muvouser]

Maybe investment gains does not necessary means monetary returns.

Perhaps for some who "invested" in good lens (L) will have better mental well being? Maintain sanity? These contributes to better quality of life which is a very good "investment" for the soul! ;p

Why do people consider lenses as investments? They don't generate income for most photographers anyway, no offence.
Back to topic, i would go for the 1585 lens in a heartbeat, i can live without the constant f/2.8 aperture.

 

[auden09]

Maybe investment gains does not necessary means monetary returns.

Perhaps for some who "invested" in good lens (L) will have better mental well being? Maintain sanity? These contributes to better quality of life which is a very good "investment" for the soul! ;p

maintain sanity?

 

[muvouser]

Yes bro. Many people are very stressed in life. They may sink into their hobbies to maintain their sanity after all the stress of work and family life. Splurging on good lens certainly makes one feel good! hahaha

maintain sanity?

 

[diver-hloc]

Why do people consider lenses as investments? They don't generate income for most photographers anyway, no offence.
Back to topic, i would go for the 1585 lens in a heartbeat, i can live without the constant f/2.8 aperture.

Again.... investment doesn't mean making more $$$$.

A brand new EOS 40D sells at $1.8+K 2 year ago.... and is only around $1.2-$1.3K now. Reason - EOS 50D came out 18+months later. The 17-55mm I brought 1 year ago is about $250 cheaper than the selling price of this lens nowadays. And I believe that the price would remain the same in the next 2-3 year. Canon doesn't release 'New Version' of old lenses every 18mth..... Many here are still waiting for a EF 24-70mm L f2.8 MkII.... and till a MkII is release.... the 24-70mm would remain around the same price.

Therefore, a good set of Lens is a 'better' investment as the price remain the same and/or depreciate 'in Value' in a much lower rate when compared with any Camera..... much like buying $1000 Handphone..... :sweat:

 

[auden09]

Yes bro. Many people are very stressed in life. They may sink into their hobbies to maintain their sanity after all the stress of work and family left. Splurging on good lens certainly makes one feel good! hahaha

lol...that's if they have the money to do that. if i were rich, i'd happily splurge on the 24 f/1.4L II...it's a great lens for the crop body. too bad i'm still an nsf. and no way would i spend $2.7k on a prime, i dunno why. telezooms like 70-200 f2.8 IS still ok to me, but primes...nono. maybe because i'm still an nsf and soon-to-be student. so now still gotta make do with cheap primes and efs zooms. oh well...15-85 is the way to go for me.

 

[muvouser]

hey bro,

You are lucky to have a DSLR being a NSF! For me, my family not so well off so during nsf, I dun get any pocket money at all! In those days, nsf's pay for my vocation l think about $200hor! :embrass:

lol...that's if they have the money to do that. if i were rich, i'd happily splurge on the 24 f/1.4L II...it's a great lens for the crop body. too bad i'm still an nsf. and no way would i spend $2.7k on a prime, i dunno why. telezooms like 70-200 f2.8 IS still ok to me, but primes...nono. maybe because i'm still an nsf and soon-to-be student. so now still gotta make do with cheap primes and efs zooms. oh well...15-85 is the way to go for me.

 

[auden09]

yeah i don't get any pocket money too. but thankfully the allowance right now is really good for a spec onwards. i'm getting $890 every month doing lotsa manual though.