Canon 15-85 IS Vs. 18-55 IS.

razza

razza

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Name
Ray
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 500d which I am currently using with a non-IS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I definitely want to replace my current 18-55 with an IS lens and would ideally like something slightly wider. The two obvious contenders (well to me anyway) are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS MKII" at around £80 then a massive jump in price to the "EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM" at around £500.

Is it worth the extra investment? Are there other lenses I should consider?

I am new to photography, so this will be a general purpose lens (walkabout/landscape/etc.). I also have a 55-250 IS.
 
I changed my kit lens last year and went for the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 i love it cost about £370 i think can't fault it
 
15-85 is definitely worth it. 17-55/2.8 or tamron 17-50/2.8 are the other major contenders usually...
 
I've never had the 15-85 but it appears to get good reports for its IQ.
However, these 2 lenses are completely different animals, what are your requirements? What is limiting you in your current lens?
Focal length- 15-85 wins
IQ -either
Build quality -either
Low light abilities-17-55

But depending on your needs there are other options too. You need to be sure about your needs or else you'll end up in the cycle of buying loads of gear for the sake of it.
 
Phil V said:
...You need to be sure about your needs or else you'll end up in the cycle of buying loads of gear for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

Ideally I would like a slightly wider lens. I would also like IS to help in lower light situations. For example, I visited the SS Great Britain in Bristol yesterday. A slightly wider lens would have helped in confined spaces and IS would certainly have helped in the dark museum.

I'm aware that you can go on wanting just that bit more, hence trying to understand how much I should pay.
 
I know you are looking for IS, but I would add +1 to the previous poster about the 17-70 Sigma. Great IQ and relatively cheap.

Out of the two, I think the 15-85 from all reviews I've seen would be perhaps the better bet but considering investing that much money, I'd go up to the 17-55 Canon probably - if you aren't considering going FF any time soon. That's just my 2 pence though!
 
The 15-85 has a fabulous IS system. It appears to be 4+stops worth. Whilst I know the 17-55 also has IS, it's not as good as the 15-85 one so that narrows the gap. All in all (price, range, quality) we went with the 15-85. Unless you're shooting moving objects, it appears to be the best compromise of the 3.
 
Thanks for all the comments guys, I'm leaning toward the "Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM" at about £330 and thinking maybe save my pennies for a 10-22 (or similar later).
 
arad85 said:
The 15-85 has a fabulous IS system. It appears to be 4+stops worth. Whilst I know the 17-55 also has IS, it's not as good as the 15-85 one so that narrows the gap. All in all (price, range, quality) we went with the 15-85. Unless you're shooting moving objects, it appears to be the best compromise of the 3.
Click to expand...

I'm just waiting for my 15-85mm to be delivered, is the af too slow for moving objects?
 
bjh1912 said:
I'm just waiting for my 15-85mm to be delivered, is the af too slow for moving objects?
Click to expand...

Nope
Img_1861.jpg
 
Last edited:
+1 on the 15-85,only just picked up a secondhand copy,but it's a real cracker.
Had the 18-55 is,but the 15-85 is built like a tank in comparisons and the extra focal length makes a massive difference.

I guess it depends if you really need the faster speed of some of the other lenses mentioned or not.
 
Heard a lot of good things about about the Canon 15-85 but when I was looking to upgrade my kit lens it was out of my budget, I opted for a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 instead and have been very happy with it indeed.
Not so handy if you are looking for something with a touch more reach at the long end though.
 
I carried out a direct comparison test with the 15-85 against the 24-105L. In actual fact the reason I did so is because I correctly thought my 24-105 was soft. When I received my replacement copy I repeated the tests on a distant brick wall on a tripod. Both lenses were very close in sharpness, the 24-105 a little better wide open. At F8 I could detect no difference on 100% crops. Perhaps colour rendition was a little better on the L.

Sorry I no longer have my test shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top