Canon EF-S 17-55 replacement EF-S 15-60

Justin_Kerby

Justin_Kerby

Messages
49
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
A while ago there was a rumor that Canon was going to replace the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS with EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS. Was wondering if anyone has heard any further rumors on this lens as it would immediately go on my wanted list.
 
iced_jacob said:
...said and took out the 10-500 2.0 from the bag ;)
Click to expand...

Many years ago people used to belive thst the earth was flat and carried by giant turtles. How wrong were they. Its not gonna be any bigger than the 24-70 f/2.8 mk 2. 82mm filter thread?! Bring it on :-)
 
Justin_Kerby said:
Found this article on the web
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/ef-s-15-60-f2-8-is-cr1/
and was interested as I want to purchase either the EF-S 17-55 or EFS 15-85 but if the 15-60 f2.8 is coming then I want it, I does as it is precious.
Click to expand...

I would consider it too although ive been looking at the 24-70.. the 15-60 would be ideal. I was in the same boat as u are after a lot of testing both the 17-55 and the 15-85 and a lot of reading I chose the 15-85 as to me it was a better lens than the 17-55, the range is better the IS is better and so is the built quality and the sharpens was greater and the CA control too. Prior to this I owned the tamron 17-50 vc but I returned it as it had a faulty zoom control, got another one but that one was too soft and the shop was out of stock so I went with the 15-85 but if the 15-60 is anything like the 15-85 than count me in.
 
I have come down on the side of the 15-85 as well as want it as a walk a round lens for holiday. I know the 17-55 is f/2.8 but most of pics will be during the day so the extra width at 15 and the extra length at 85 will suit my needs, just need the funds now.

Just don't want the scenario of buying the 15-85 and then next day the 15-60 f/2.8 comes out which would give me width, bit more length plus f/2.8, knowing my luck this is what will happen.
 
Justin_Kerby said:
I have come down on the side of the 15-85 as well as want it as a walk a round lens for holiday. I know the 17-55 is f/2.8 but most of pics will be during the day so the extra width at 15 and the extra length at 85 will suit my needs, just need the funds now.

Just don't want the scenario of buying the 15-85 and then next day the 15-60 f/2.8 comes out which would give me width, bit more length plus f/2.8, knowing my luck this is what will happen.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sweat that mate as it will be pretty unaffordable at launch if it's ever made.
 
Think you are right, probably around £1000 and that amount is for the 100-400 next year (if the wife forgets about the kitchen referb).
This photography lark is becoming expensive but it is quite addictive and it makes you see the world in a different way, photo opportunities!
 
I have owned both lenses and still own the 17-55mm lens, it all depends on what your shooting, imo, the 17-55mm is a better lens, if your shooting outside a lot then go for the cheaper 15-85mm but if you need the f2.8 of the 17-55mm for low light and back ground blur then i can honestly say the 17-55mm has the edge.
 
On a similar vein what happened to the 200-400 f4 with built in 1.4 extender that Canon were talking about last year?
 
Why would Canon feel the need to replace their top selling and best ever EF-S mount lens? There are other lenses which are in much greater need of a refresh, and very few lenses (at any price) which can match the 17-55 for IQ.
 
the 17-55 is a brilliant lens and I really want it but there are a few things that might mean the 15-85 is better for me. I am going on hols and need a general purpose lens so I don't have to take loads of kit. Will be in Oz and outside for most of the shots.
15-85 - Better low end for those nice landscape shots of family
15-85 - Bit longer reach for the distance shots
15-85 = £475 and 17-55 = 729

Is the F/2.8 worth the extra £254???
 
Orville said:
Why would Canon feel the need to replace their top selling and best ever EF-S mount lens? There are other lenses which are in much greater need of a refresh, and very few lenses (at any price) which can match the 17-55 for IQ.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that if we do see a new mid range 2.8 zoom it'll be aimed at 7D/7D mk2 pro users and feature higher end build and sealing, probabley sold at a prenium while the 17-55mm caters to its existing market.
 
Think you are right, might be introduced as a L and way outside my price range.
wuyanxu has made me uncertain again 17-55 or 15-85, thought the 15-85 was the answer but 17-55 has come back into the ring.
 
If it is released then still think it might be in £1000 bracket as the 17-55 is in the £700-£800 bracket, worse luck.
 
iced_jacob said:
L's are all FF compatible. if it's APS-C it wont be an L
Click to expand...

They are at the moment as it serves Canon's marketing but theres no reason why they wouldnt put the red ring on a higher end crop zoom that offered modern L features like weather sealing, they put it on a fixed lens bridge camera in the past afterall.

L or not though I think you can be pretty sure it would sell at a significant prenium, given that and how well the current model performs I don't think you really need to worry about updates Justin.

It sounds to me like your main attraction to the 15-85mm might be the wide end, if thats the case and you want f2.8 I'd consider maybe the Tamron 17-50mm and the Sigma 10-20mm.
 
Think you are right, will have to research the 17-55 vs 15-85 again, just really can't make my mind up. Want both really but can't justify that, not usually this indecisive but there are pros and cons for both.
 
I had the tamron 17-50 which was really good and half the price of the 17-55!
I now have a 15-85 which is a really no nonsense solid lens the build quality is by far the best I've owned!
I didn't really consider the 17-55 as I preferred the focal range of the 15-85..
 
What kind of uses are you looking at?

The 15-85mm is for me best suited as an outdoor lens for things like landscapes, street pics, family snaps etc were as the 17-55mm is more of an all rounder with advanatges for low light/indoor, action and portraits.
 
Going to be the only lens taken on holiday to Oz so think you are edging me towards the 15-85.
 
Moreorless said:
What kind of uses are you looking at?

The 15-85mm is for me best suited as an outdoor lens for things like landscapes, street pics, family snaps etc were as the 17-55mm is more of an all rounder with advanatges for low light/indoor, action and portraits.
Click to expand...

Totaly Agree here, they are both fantastic lenses, if your going to be in oz mostly shooting outside then the 15-85 is fine, but if i had to choose (which i did) it would be 100% the 17-55mm without a doubt, but as i said the 15-85 is also a ver very good lens.
 
Is the 17-55mm worth that extra amount, happy to wait for funds if the F/2.8 is worth it over the 15-85. I know the constant F/2.8 is good but will I definitely see the difference in all pictures or does it just kick in at the lower light end?
 
wuyanxu said:
no. bump up the ISO.

but constant aperture is.
Click to expand...

I bumped the iso as you suggested but doing so did not give me a shallower depth of field. Can you help?
 
If your shooting at the same f number on both lenses you wouldn't really notice a vast difference in image quality, but if your inside or the light isn't great the 17-55 is by far the best, I think the extra money is worth it, the resale of the 17-55 is still quite high too.

Oh decisions, decisions :bonk:
 
dubcat said:
I bumped the iso as you suggested but doing so did not give me a shallower depth of field. Can you help?
Click to expand...

Use the lowest f/number possible mate and get as much distance between your subject and the background. But if I were you I'd keep the iso as low as possible you only need to creep this up if the light is bad, but then your image quality will suffer the higher you go with the iso.
 
Last edited:
dubcat said:
I bumped the iso as you suggested but doing so did not give me a shallower depth of field. Can you help?
Click to expand...
as said, at 85mm f/5.6 and get a large distance difference between subject and background will give you shallow DoF.

go for primes and full frame if you want shallow DoF.

for shows during holiday and traveling, shallow DoF is rarely desirable.
 
Justin_Kerby said:
Is the 17-55mm worth that extra amount, happy to wait for funds if the F/2.8 is worth it over the 15-85. I know the constant F/2.8 is good but will I definitely see the difference in all pictures or does it just kick in at the lower light end?
Click to expand...

Again I think it really depends on your useage, the 15-85mm performs near to its peak wide open in my expereince so at similar focal lenghts and appature I don't think you'll see a big difference.

To me it really comes down to range and a smaller size vs f2.8, the 15-85mm's max appatures are....

15-17mm = f/3.5
18-26mm = f/4.0
27-37mm = f/4.5
38-60mm = f/5.0
61-85mm = f/5.6

So at 55mm the 17-55mm is going to be a stop and 2/3rds brighter, or the difference between ISO 100 and around ISO 350 plus of course having a smaller depth of field.

I'd consider how you use a larger aperture, does your shooting style need it in a zoom? personally I really favour a zoom for stopped down landscape shooting to give me the exact framing/perspective I need but for people/shallow DOF shooting I find a prime and "zooming with your feet" is often fine.

One compact holiday setup I'd consider is a 15-85mm AND a used 35mm f/2(the old non IS version), the latter is a stop faster than the 17-55mm and unlike many cheaper primes is pretty sharp wide open. Its also a tiny lens thats easy to store and makes very small package with a 600D which is nice for casual/street use. Closeup wise its also supprizingly good with a 1:4 magnification(17-55m is 1:6), maybe not idea for speicalist macro but nice to have for say flower shots. There actually seem to be a few of them about used at the moment aswell with people upgrading to the IS version.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu, so you think the 15-85mm would be fine for holiday shots.
Have got a Canon 50mm F/1.8 (which for the price is a brilliant lens), as it is so small could pop this into a bag somewhere.
 
I've got the 17-55 and its a nice lens, but I think if I were you I would be getting the 15-85.

Although the wider aperture usually has more benefits and people pay accordingly, if you aren't going to require these benefits then I would consider other options.

I was in a similar situations with the wide angles, should it be the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5. I opted for the Canon as I don't shoot indoor, I have used all of the 10-22 focal length(s) and usually have my aperture at around f5.6 to f8. So I have never required or used the Canon at its widest aperture and would have missed shots with the shorter 11-16 range.

Also, if you don't already have it the Canon 55-250mm Efs is nice little tele-zoom to have in your bag. It doesn't take up much space at all and delivers good images and focal length for the money.:thumbs:
 
I personally think the constant aperture is worth the money while f2.8 isn't. same as Moreorless, I'd go for primes if I want shallow DoF or low light shooting. I'd grab my 85/1.8 for portraits and 35/2 for everything else in low light.

In your case, the 50/1.8.

Seeing there are no 24-105 f4L equivalent for crop, the 15-85mm is quite a good alternative. Personally when going on holiday, a large zoom range and light lens is better than a not as versatile f2.8 big and heavy lens.
 
Sorry Wuyanxu, I was being cheeky :) You are right though - for a holiday I think the average user would be better off with the 15-85. I speak as a 17-55 user/owner. I love the shallow DoF I can get and i use it a lot when on holiday etc. However, I think most people would prefer the wider focal range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top