Canon 17-40 vs 15-85

Canon 17-40 or 15-85 on a crop camera- which do you think is the better compromise?

  • Total voters
    28
travellingcello

travellingcello

Messages
1,841
Edit My Images
Yes
On a crop camera - which is the better compromise overall?

Would be interested to hear especially from people who have used/owned both.

Thanks.
 
Ive owned both andthe 17-40 is the better of the 2. The zoom mechanism went on the other after 7 months as it goes in and out to zoom, the 17-40 is a gorgeous lens and worth every penny :-)
 
I own and have used both. But which is better depends on what you're planning to do with it.

The 17-40L offers better IQ and is a great landscape lens, and is stunning on a full-frame body.

The 15-85 is much more versatile and is a great walkaround lens, but it's crop-sensor only.

Horses for courses. What do you want to shoot?
 
Gregory Hicks said:
Ive owned both andthe 17-40 is the better of the 2. The zoom mechanism went on the other after 7 months as it goes in and out to zoom, the 17-40 is a gorgeous lens and worth every penny :-)
Click to expand...

What was the 17-40 better for specifically? It sounds as though you liked the build quality which I know is good but what about IQ? Did you find the IS useful? And which lens did you have first?


Just to clarify folks, I own the 17-40 now but am led to wonder whether the 15-85 would be a better walkaround for when I travel.
I travel abroad relatively often but due to the nature of what I do I'm not in a position to carry bag loads of lenses.... (maybe I should just give up my dslr and get a P&S!!!!!!! :bonk:)
 
We have both. TBH, I haven't even tried the 17-40 on the 7D as we get some great pics using the 15-85. The IS on the 15-85 is superb giving close to 4 stops extra. Useless if you're shooting moving things but great for static subjects. It was the only lens on the 7D when we were in America for 3 weeks (and must have taken close on 1000 photos with it).

Do you find the 17-40 limiting as a walkabout? If so, in what areas?
 
is the 17-40 worth buying at the minute, good price in comparison to 16-35, or will it be likely to fall further?
 
arad85 said:
We have both. TBH, I haven't even tried the 17-40 on the 7D as we get some great pics using the 15-85. The IS on the 15-85 is superb giving close to 4 stops extra. Useless if you're shooting moving things but great for static subjects. It was the only lens on the 7D when we were in America for 3 weeks (and must have taken close on 1000 photos with it).

Do you find the 17-40 limiting as a walkabout? If so, in what areas?
Click to expand...

Well I had it on a 1Ds before and it was great (as its pretty much the only affordable decent wide-angle zoom for FF!) but now its on a crop its neither really wide enough or long enough.

I don't really have any gripes with it IQ-wise although I am led to believe that the 15-85 may have slightly better IQ although the 17-40 has better colour reproduction???

I used to have the Tamron 17-50 non-VC and comparing the photos to ones I have taken with the 17-40L I can clearly see that the Tamron is a sharper lens.

I'm not sure about going back to the Tamron though because as sharp as it was, the focussing mechanism and build quality always had me in want of more.

It would be interesting to hear form anybody who has had the 17-50 non-VC and either the 17-40 or 15-85 as well.
 
If your using the lens for arcutecture shots and outdoor shots i presume the tripod you will be using :-) will take the place of the IS. None of my lens i own now have IS. Invest in a good tripod instead of over paying for a is system. The build quality is better, the glass inside the lens is also 10x better, its more sharper, arso take a photo of the same thing with both lenses on, the 17-40 is a bigfer photo file as it takes in more detail and makes your shot more adaptable. Hope this helps......
 
Gregory Hicks said:
If your using the lens for arcutecture shots and outdoor shots i presume the tripod you will be using :-) will take the place of the IS. None of my lens i own now have IS. Invest in a good tripod instead of over paying for a is system.
Click to expand...

And:

travellingcello said:
Just to clarify folks, I own the 17-40 now but am led to wonder whether the 15-85 would be a better walkaround for when I travel.
I travel abroad relatively often but due to the nature of what I do I'm not in a position to carry bag loads of lenses.... (maybe I should just give up my dslr and get a P&S!!!!!!! :bonk:)
Click to expand...

leads me to believe he would prefer a lighter combo than tripod plus camera lens ;)
 
Gregory Hicks said:
If your using the lens for arcutecture shots and outdoor shots i presume the tripod you will be using :-) will take the place of the IS. None of my lens i own now have IS. Invest in a good tripod instead of over paying for a is system.
Click to expand...

Who wants to lug a tripod around everywhere when it's not always necessary.

Gregory Hicks said:
The build quality is better,......
Click to expand...

The build quality may well be better (it is an L lens after all) but having said that the 15-85 build quality is very good.

Gregory Hicks said:
..., the glass inside the lens is also 10x better,......
Click to expand...

10 times better glass?! Let's compare:

17-40 > 12 elements in 9 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

15-85 > 17 elements in 12 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

I rest my case.
 
Jackwow said:
Who wants to lug a tripod around everywhere when it's not always necessary.



The build quality may well be better (it is an L lens after all) but having said that the 15-85 build quality is very good.



10 times better glass?! Let's compare:

17-40 > 12 elements in 9 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

15-85 > 17 elements in 12 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance but I don't really understand the number of elements comparison - and in any case I can't believe the 17-40 is 10 times better glass.
 
I use the 15-85 on my 7D as my "general purpose" lens and it hasn't disappointed me once!!!

I also own/use a 100-400L and whilst because of the focal lengths involved the images aren't directly comparable, I never look at the images from the 15-85 and think they look inferior to those from the L glass.

Speaking to a number of people it would seem the 15-85 is considered "L" quality but is just missing the red ring ;) :lol:

I suppose what you need to consider is that even if the IQ from the 17-40 is superior, if you ever have to crop because you can't get close enough would the end result still be better than the 15-85? I don't know the exact answer but I've always been led to believe that it's better to fill the frame ;)
 
Just my tuppence.
The 17-40 was my go to lens on both 7D and now 5D.
Always found the results to sparkle, build quality is great and of course it does have a lovely red ring :)
 
Jackwow said:
Who wants to lug a tripod around everywhere when it's not always necessary.

The build quality may well be better (it is an L lens after all) but having said that the 15-85 build quality is very good.

10 times better glass?! Let's compare:

17-40 > 12 elements in 9 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

15-85 > 17 elements in 12 groups, 3x aspherical, 1x UD

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Whats the point in people asking for an opinion if your going to slate it, views were asked so i gave mine.
 
Gregory Hicks said:
Whats the point in people asking for an opinion if your going to slate it, views were asked so i gave mine.
Click to expand...

Are you talking to me? I'm sorry , no offence intended!

However I do feel your view is rather confusing and brash - how did you come to the conclusion that the glass is 10x better in the 17-40L?

Also is this based on your own experience that you feel that the 17-40L is sharper than the 15-85?

Also your comment that the 17-40L will produce a bigger photo file - what on earth does that mean? Sounds very misleading to me if not just wrong?
 
travellingcello said:
Are you talking to me? I'm sorry , no offence intended!

However I do feel your view is rather confusing and brash - how did you come to the conclusion that the glass is 10x better in the 17-40L?

Also is this based on your own experience that you feel that the 17-40L is sharper than the 15-85?

Also your comment that the 17-40L will produce a bigger photo file - what on earth does that mean? Sounds very misleading to me if not just wrong?
Click to expand...

Ive actually just read what i put, ignore what i put i had only jist woken up. :-s

I still prefer the 17-40 f4 but try them out before u buy
 
Gregory Hicks said:
Whats the point in people asking for an opinion if your going to slate it, views were asked so i gave mine.
Click to expand...

I was disagreeing with your opinion, do you have a problem with that?

You made a ridiculous statement about a 17-40 having 10x better glass than a 15-85. I think I proved your statement to be ********, do you have a problem with that?

If you don't want anyone to disagree with your opinion then best not to post it. :cuckoo:
 
Jackwow said:
I was disagreeing with your opinion, do you have a problem with that?

You made a ridiculous statement about a 17-40 having 10x better glass than a 15-85. I think I proved your statement to be ********, do you have a problem with that?

If you don't want anyone to disagree with your opinion then best not to post it. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Ok let's keep it calm, Gregory has already said to ignore what he said!!!! Please don't turn this thread into a shouting match! :nono:
 
Sorry about that. Anyway I assume you've got your answer from the poll (10 v 2)?
 
nope, far from it.

less CA, less distortion and a constant f2.8 - if you think the 15-85 is comparable to the 17-55 I suggest you just stick with the 18-55 IS kit lens then.


travellingcello said:
I considered it but ruled it out because IQ is comparable to the 15-85 and I personally don't feel its interesting enough to spend that much more money on it.
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
nope, far from it.

less CA, less distortion and a constant f2.8 - if you think the 15-85 is comparable to the 17-55 I suggest you just stick with the 18-55 IS kit lens then.
Click to expand...

Oy weegie, this thread is about 17-40 v 15-85. :rules:
 
POAH said:
if you think the 15-85 is comparable to the 17-55 I suggest you just stick with the 18-55 IS kit lens then.
Click to expand...
In all but absolute aperture (which the better IS makes up for on the 15- for most cases) over the range of the 17-55, they are - to all intents and purposes - identical.

No, the 15- can't get the shutter speed of the 17-, but it can get as good and as sharp a picture (even sharper when the 17- is towards it's end stops). I do wish people would consider a lens based on its merits, and not on its fastest aperture...

All lenses are compromises. Your compromises will be different to mine. Acknowledge that ;)
 
iq is not just about sharpness if you think the 15-85 is on par with the 17-55 then get the 15-85.
 
Dare I suggest the 17-85 from Canon?

It's served me well as a "walkabout" lens and didn't set me back too much at all really.

Yes its not same build quality, glass quality, but to me it's a great value lens that seems to fit this gentleman's requirements.

I appreciate it's not all about cost, but I thought I would mention it as an option

:-)
 
POAH said:
iq is not just about sharpness
Click to expand...
Sharpness is about the only lens characteristic that can't be cured if it's bad in post. Whether you want to spend time in post (which amounts to setting a default import in Lightroom) is another question....
 
arad85 said:
Sharpness is about the only lens characteristic that can't be cured if it's bad in post. Whether you want to spend time in post (which amounts to setting a default import in Lightroom) is another question....
Click to expand...

when you correct for the others you affect the quality of the images. I'd rather have an image that needs little or no correction over one that needs lots.

I'm not saying the 15-85 is a poor lens just that the 17-55 is better for IQ.
 
POAH said:
when you correct for the others you affect the quality of the images. I'd rather have an image that needs little or no correction over one that needs lots.

I'm not saying the 15-85 is a poor lens just that the 17-55 is better for IQ.
Click to expand...

But..... the original post was about the 17-40 vs 15-85.

The 17-55 is more expensive than both of those two and perhaps that's the reason it hasn't been considered?

Whilst if money was no object, the 17-55 would seem the logical choice over the 17-40 but it would seem that the 15-85 may suit the OP better do to the extra focal range it offers.

That being said, unless you're doing photography to put food on the table, I doubt the IQ difference between the 17-55 and 15-85 would warrant the extra £160 but the focal range would make for a more practical lens.
 
Russ77 said:
But..... the original post was about the 17-40 vs 15-85.

The 17-55 is more expensive than both of those two and perhaps that's the reason it hasn't been considered?

Whilst if money was no object, the 17-55 would seem the logical choice over the 17-40 but it would seem that the 15-85 may suit the OP better do to the extra focal range it offers.

That being said, unless you're doing photography to put food on the table, I doubt the IQ difference between the 17-55 and 15-85 would warrant the extra £160 but the focal range would make for a more practical lens.
Click to expand...

Thats almost exactly what I thought - but the reason I bought the 17-40L in the first place was because I had a 1Ds (which I've now sold) and I was considering getting a 5D mk1. I've now scrapped those plans for financial reasons and decided to sell up some of my gear. So financially a 17-55 2.8 wouldn't make sense for me, and in any case for my travel purposes a 15-85 I think is more useful.

Anyhow as of today I swapped my 200mm 2.8L II which wasn't getting used for a 15-85, so I'll try out both lenses alongside eachother (17-40L and 15-85) and sell whichever I feel is less practical...
 
Russ77 said:
That being said, unless you're doing photography to put food on the table, I doubt the IQ difference between the 17-55 and 15-85 would warrant the extra £160 but the focal range would make for a more practical lens.
Click to expand...
As someone who made that choice (and wasn't worried about spending the extra £160), I couldn't agree more ;)
 
POAH said:
when you correct for the others you affect the quality of the images. I'd rather have an image that needs little or no correction over one that needs lots.
Click to expand...
And when the image is rendered onto any output medium which has a limited dynamic range and colours (i.e. print or screen which is all we'll ever do), you'd probably be hard pushed to tell the difference.
 
I voted for the 17-40 BTW ;)

Russ77 said:
But..... the original post was about the 17-40 vs 15-85.

The 17-55 is more expensive than both of those two and perhaps that's the reason it hasn't been considered?

Whilst if money was no object, the 17-55 would seem the logical choice over the 17-40 but it would seem that the 15-85 may suit the OP better do to the extra focal range it offers.

That being said, unless you're doing photography to put food on the table, I doubt the IQ difference between the 17-55 and 15-85 would warrant the extra £160 but the focal range would make for a more practical lens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top