How good is the 15-85mm IS USM?

bren-escape

bren-escape

Messages
394
Edit My Images
No
I am in the process of upgrading from my 40D to a 7D and can't decide whether it is worth getting the 15-85mm IS USM or not. Is it good enough to replace my sigma 18-50mm F2.8 and my Tokina 12-24mm F4?? I think it would need to replace both to justify it as the 18-50mm is currently my least used lens. It would still leave me my canon 50mm F1.4 for low light indoor stuff. I mainly take pics of my 17mth old son (50mm), occasional landscapes(12-24mm) and close up off road motorbikes (18-50mm).

Your thoughts appreciated.

Thanks.
 
My friend has the 15-85 and he sold his tokina 12-24 after buying it. I was very impressed with the iq and considered it about the same as my 24-105 f4 is l. Obviously not the same build and fixed aperture but I think a very good lens and has a real sparkle to the images. I would recommend it.
 
A friend of mine has this lens as his only lens for his 50D. I tried it on my 7D and took some controlled shots with this and my 24-105 L and compared the 2 - as much as it "hurts" me to say it - there's very little difference between the two lenses! The 24-105 has a slightly better colour rendition but you really have to look for the difference - you might be able to notice a few other differences if you pixel peep, but that's not how we should really look at pics, is it!! Build quality is also better on the L as you would expect, but the 15-85 is still very well built. I really don't think you'd regret it!
 
The 15-85 is a superb lens, the only draback if it can be considered a drawback is it is not f2.8, but the range it covers makes it an ideal walkround lens.

Img_1845.jpg
 
good range, decent sharpness but shocking CA and distortion at wide angles. I'd not use one due to that
 
Thanks for replies. I may go for it, for me the 12-24 and 18-50 only get used a few times a month, if one lens replaced both it maybe worth it but otherwise I am happy with what I have.
 
POAH said:
good range, decent sharpness but shocking CA and distortion at wide angles. I'd not use one due to that
Click to expand...
:shrug: That's very purist of you. Both of these are easy to correct in post.

All zoom lenses are a compromise and unless you want to carry a bunch of very expensive primes (which will have a different set of problems) the 15-85 is a great lens. Not great for low light action shots (due to the relatively slow aperture) but other than that, it's almost on a par with the 17-55 for sharpness (and beats it in some instances).

To see what it's like against other Canon lenses in real world photos, have a look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
 
not all zoom lenses are as bad for distortion or CA as the 15-85

I don't want to correct distortion as it leads to a less sharp image, the same with CA. I want as very little in the way of draw backs when I use a lens. The lens also has a huge amount of vignetting at 15mm.


arad85 said:
:shrug: That's very purist of you. Both of these are easy to correct in post.

All zoom lenses are a compromise and unless you want to carry a bunch of very expensive primes (which will have a different set of problems) the 15-85 is a great lens. Not great for low light action shots (due to the relatively slow aperture) but other than that, it's almost on a par with the 17-55 for sharpness (and beats it in some instances).

To see what it's like against other Canon lenses in real world photos, have a look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
not all zoom lenses are as bad for distortion or CA as the 15-85

I don't want to correct distortion as it leads to a less sharp image, the same with CA. I want as very little in the way of draw backs when I use a lens. The lens also has a huge amount of vignetting at 15mm.
Click to expand...
Zoom lenses are a compromise... Both CA and distortion on the 15-85 appear to be better than the highly regarded 17-55 2.8 according to slrgear....

What would you suggest the OP does then?
 
Thanks for the replies. Looking at the reviews the len's does get better reviews than the ones I own.

I think 15mm is plenty wide enough for the landscapes I do, compared to the 12mm of the 12-24mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top