So this new Canon 15-85mm lens

Dudie

Dudie

Messages
463
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
If I am reading the MTF charts correctly, it appears that the real world image quality from the new 15-85 should be up there with the 17-55 and 17-40. If that's the case, this new lens should be the ideal walkabout for crop users (especially for those with a landscape bias like me, where the f2.8 or f4 of the aforementioned are rarely required). The 15-85 coupled with a 70-200 should therefore provide a brilliant, lightweight landscape combo for those wanting to travel light in the hills, reducing lens count by at least one and maybe two (rarely used my 10-22mm below 15mm as it happens). Anyone else excited by this new lens? (Or at least, will be excited when the price drops a bit :D )
 
If the image quality is good (on the level of 17-55 or close to it), then it'll be a perfect walkaround lens for crop bodies. It is a bit expensive at the moment though.

Can't wait for some reviews of this one.
 
Range is walkabout wonderful, image quality promises to be very high, and IS.

If you can live with f/3.5-5.6 it's going to be pretty much perfect, but I'll be sticking with my 17-55 2.8.
 
Looks like the type of lens that will sit mostly on a tripod when being used as the 15mm end would be ideal for landscape and 85mm for portrait [in my opinion of coarse] so the f3.5-f5.6 will be fine. The quality will have to be pretty good to persuade the 17-55 f2.8 lookers to go for it. Warehouse express are selling the 15-85 for £699 at the moment. The 17-55 is £793 so if you can as said live with the f3.5 then it should be a cracker!! Should go well with my 28-135mm f3.5-f5.6!

Image example:
3876853731_f683e60335_o.jpg


Image of lens:
3876843057_df25c984da_o.jpg
 
true!!!!(y)
 
I am holding fire on getting my walkaround lens until I have read reviews of this and the 18-135. I know warehouse express has them in stock so I am surprised there are no reviews out there yet!

I know the 15-85 is going to be far superior to the 18-135... but for nearly £600 in the UK its damn pricey compared to the £200 cheaper 18-135. If i had the budget I would probably go for the 15-85 (reviews depending) but I'm really not sure I can afford it!!!
 
I don't think i would be willing to drop £700 on a f/5.6 glass, and even if i does 100% landscape i would still want a constant aperture glass for that kind of money.
 
Agreed.
The 17-40L is a cheaper buy for landscape work, and the 28-135IS is still a nice enough walkabout lens for half the money, if not quite wide enough on a cropped sensor.
Plus I really don't see EF-S lenses as a good investment.
 
Neverender said:
Agreed.
The 17-40L is a cheaper buy for landscape work, and the 28-135IS is still a nice enough walkabout lens for half the money, if not quite wide enough on a cropped sensor.
Plus I really don't see EF-S lenses as a good investment.
Click to expand...

17-40L is the one that doesn't make any sense to me on a crop body, when EF-S 17-55 is so much better spec.

I disagree than EF-S lenses are a poor investment. Full frame is not the major upgrade that some people seem think it is and even if it was, very few actually do it. Full frame is a tiny fraction of the market, even amongst enthusiasts.
 
HoppyUK said:
17-40L is the one that doesn't make any sense to me on a crop body, when EF-S 17-55 is so much better spec.

I disagree than EF-S lenses are a poor investment. Full frame is not the major upgrade that some people seem think it is and even if it was, very few actually do it. Full frame is a tiny fraction of the market, even amongst enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

Its an L series lens- which means its quality is pretty good, and weatherproof.
 
Sure it will sell for a lot less than the rrp, don't think many people pay the full whack for the 28-135 whick looks to be of comparable quality

Not sure either on this poor investment bit either, surely you buy a lens to use not as a financial asset
If that was that the general rule of thumb nobody would ever buy a car
 
bomberman said:
quite a lot of canon stuff is (overpriced)
Click to expand...

It's all way overpriced ,until the next new never to be beaten camera/lens comes on the market, unfortunately that's the way it is :bang:
 
Being fairly new to this I could get shot down in flames here but, I have been considering buying the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5, I know the Canon 15-85 is a better quality lens but the Sigma is half the price of the Canon. My question would be, as I am on a limited budget is the extra £300 for the Canon worth it???
 
I have been considering buying the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5
Click to expand...

That's what i just did, seen some nice images from the Sigma and not keen on spending big bucks on a bog standard lens such as the Canon ones mentioned here

Only problem I have now is the cheapo Tamron 19-35mm I bought as a stop gap has really surprised me today with the few shots I took.
Really sharp and nice colour, just have to see how it compares with the 17-70mm although the extra range will be very handy
 
Yep, think I'll go for the Sigma, I've already bought the Sigma 10-20 and I have been impressed by it.
 
Paulbaker said:
Yep, think I'll go for the Sigma, I've already bought the Sigma 10-20 and I have been impressed by it.
Click to expand...

I would (if in your position) do the same and go for the Sigma. It is a cracking lens! I think the Canon 15-85 will end up having an on-line price of about £450ish so compared to the Sigma at about £240 you save roughly £200! Now that can't be bad!
 
aligibbs said:
Its an L series lens- which means its quality is pretty good, and weatherproof.
Click to expand...

Sure the EF 17-40L is good. Very definitely. And very robustly made. But the thing that you're really paying for is full frame coverage, which of course you can never get any benefit from with a crop format camera - it's completely wasted.

The downside is that, compared to the EF-S 17-55 2.8 which is optically as good if not better (less distortion for a start) and still very well made, range is reduced, aperture is reduced by one whole stop, and there's no IS.

All I'm saying is that people should buy stuff with their eyes open. Canon makes EF-S lenses specifically in shorter focal lengths because there are real upsides. Even the EF 16-35L 2.8 can't get near that spec and it's about £1,200.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sure the EF 17-40L is good. Very definitely. And very robustly made. But the thing that you're really paying for is full frame coverage, which of course you can never get any benefit from with a crop format camera - it's completely wasted.

The downside is that, compared to the EF-S 17-55 2.8 which is optically as good if not better (less distortion for a start) and still very well made, range is reduced, aperture is reduced by one whole stop, and there's no IS.

All I'm saying is that people should buy stuff with their eyes open. Canon makes EF-S lenses specifically in shorter focal lengths because there are real upsides. Even the EF 16-35L 2.8 can't get near that spec and it's about £1,200.
Click to expand...

I bought the 17-40mm because it works well on a crop body which I currently have and when I can finally afford the 5m2, it will work well on there too :)
 
I got the 17-40 because I thought I would be going full frame or if very lucky a 1D mk III, then they brought out the 7D:bang: Having said that it is a nice lens but I would have got the 17-55
 
Hmmm, if this sample is representative, expect CA and corner softness on the 15-85mm

linky
 
aligibbs said:
I bought the 17-40mm because it works well on a crop body which I currently have and when I can finally afford the 5m2, it will work well on there too :)
Click to expand...

That's cool Ali and if it works for you then that's all that matters :)

However, while you use that lens on a crop body you are not making full use of its potential, and when you do make the switch, it will behave completely differently, more like the EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent). It will go from walkabout range to a super-wide.

I also don't understand why would-be full framers don't just do it now and get a used 5D instead of buying lenses that will only come into their own some time in the future.

Dudie said:
Hmmm, if this sample is representative, expect CA and corner softness on the 15-85mm

linky
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Dudie, and having waited ages for that enormous file to load ;) I really don't think it's too bad. Sure, a fair helping of CA in the corners but reasonably sharp I think. It looks fine in the centre, and bear in mind that the screen image is six feet wide :eek:

It certainly hasn't got that horrible smearly look to the edge detail. It's clean and looks like the kind of file that would scrub up very well with a run through DPP in post processing. I think that is kind of inevitable for a consumer grade lens of this focal length range and post processing (or done in-camera with the next generation of DSLRs) is part of the game these days.

To me that's an acceptable trade off considering the optical alternative is probably a very expensive L grade prime, and even they are not immune to CA at wide angles - the L grade zooms certainly aren't.

It's obviously shot very wide (15mm?) but what f/number? Shot on a 7D?
 
HoppyUK said:
Thanks for that Dudie, and having waited ages for that enormous file to load ;) I really don't think it's too bad. Sure, a fair helping of CA in the corners but reasonably sharp I think. It looks fine in the centre, and bear in mind that the screen image is six feet wide :eek:

It certainly hasn't got that horrible smearly look to the edge detail. It's clean and looks like the kind of file that would scrub up very well with a run through DPP in post processing. I think that is kind of inevitable for a consumer grade lens of this focal length range and post processing (or done in-camera with the next generation of DSLRs) is part of the game these days.

To me that's an acceptable trade off considering the optical alternative is probably a very expensive L grade prime, and even they are not immune to CA at wide angles - the L grade zooms certainly aren't.

It's obviously shot very wide (15mm?) but what f/number? Shot on a 7D?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, forgot to mention - big file alert ;) The shot was taken on a 7D but there's no EXIF info. Given the price of this lens I expected a little better. I know the price will drop but it's still pitched at the top end of the EF-S range so I would have expected image quality to be up there with the 10-22 and 17-55. I don't think either my 10-22 or my 17-40 have ever exhibited CA as bad as that, despite some testing conditions. The bottom right corner of the image looks particularly soft too - reminds me of a Sigma 10-20 I sent back once :D
Of course, that's one benefit of using EF lenses on a crop camera - the troublesome corners are rarely a problem!

Makes me wonder just how bad the much-maligned 17-85 is in comparison (never tried one)
 
Dudie said:
Oh yes, forgot to mention - big file alert ;) The shot was taken on a 7D but there's no EXIF info. Given the price of this lens I expected a little better. I know the price will drop but it's still pitched at the top end of the EF-S range so I would have expected image quality to be up there with the 10-22 and 17-55. I don't think either my 10-22 or my 17-40 have ever exhibited CA as bad as that, despite some testing conditions. The bottom right corner of the image looks particularly soft too - reminds me of a Sigma 10-20 I sent back once :D
Of course, that's one benefit of using EF lenses on a crop camera - the troublesome corners are rarely a problem!

Makes me wonder just how bad the much-maligned 17-85 is in comparison (never tried one)
Click to expand...

It's better than the 17-85 for CA, that's for sure. I had one before the 17-55, but even that is not immune to CA, nor my 10-22. Nor the 17-40L for that matter. It's a fact of life with wide zooms.

With my old 17-85 you could sometimes see it in an A4 print at normal viewing distance, if you knew what to look for (and the distortion, and the vignetting ;) ). With that 15-85 image I'm viewing at 16in wide and can't really see anything from a sensible distance of about two feet. Pixel peeping at 100% and viewing an enormously enlarged image from about one foot away is not being fair or even realistic.

The other side of the coin is that clear, straightforward lateral CA cleans up well in post processing, if it's not smeared with coma in the corners. DPP makes that so easy, just a mouse click when processing the Raws.
 
HoppyUK said:
That's cool Ali and if it works for you then that's all that matters :)

However, while you use that lens on a crop body you are not making full use of its potential, and when you do make the switch, it will behave completely differently, more like the EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent). It will go from walkabout range to a super-wide.

I also don't understand why would-be full framers don't just do it now and get a used 5D instead of buying lenses that will only come into their own some time in the future.
Click to expand...

Thats the idea, it will be my landscape lens- currently looking for a 24-105mm for my walkabout to replace its range for full frame. I can't afford a full frame, & won't be able to for another couple of years. Why am I not making good use of it?
 
aligibbs said:
Thats the idea, it will be my landscape lens- currently looking for a 24-105mm for my walkabout to replace its range for full frame. I can't afford a full frame, & won't be able to for another couple of years. Why am I not making good use of it?
Click to expand...

I said that you are not making full use of it on a crop camera. I am sure you are making very good use of it, it's a smashin lens :)

17-40 and 24-105 are a brilliant pairing on full frame (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top