EF-S Lens Recommendation

Norkie

Norkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,675
Name
Jak
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm thinking of putting a EF-S zoom lens on my 80D, 15-85, 17-55, 18-55 something of that nature.

Any recommendations please, there are so many to choose from :confused:
 
I have the 15-85 and am very happy with it. It is decently sharp and the extended length at both ends is extremely useful and makes it a very versatile walkabout lens. It has got a variable aperture but it has served me well. I would recommend it.
 
Ignore the 18-55 completely.

If you dont need the extra reach beyond 55mm and would find a constant f2.8 handy then go for the 17-55

If the extra reach is handy and you dont need fast apertures at the long end then go for the 15-85

Both lenses are excellent though so you wont be disappointed which ever way you go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I recently had for sale an 18-135 which has now gone to MPB, only because I have moved to full frame. That was an excellent lens, and the focal range was very useful and was surprisingly sharp pretty much all the way through. The 15-85 is an older lens from memory but still very capable.

From what I've read, which was a lot as I couldn't make my mind up when I had the 80D, the canon 17-55 f2.8 is just about the best walkabout zoom for crop bodies. It's basically an L-series lens without the red ring. You will pay more for it but I think it's worth it.

Other options are the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 which I owned for a while, it was really sharp but just didn't have enough reach for me. Sigma also do the 17-70 but I think that is f4 at the long end and a little older. Tamron also do similar ones but the Sigma tended to edge it in the reviews.
 
Waaay back I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and thought it was excellent and actually a bit too sharp for portraits. Back then the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 wasn't out but I would still have chosen the Tamron or Sigma f2.8 over it as, as far as I remember, they're much smaller and lighter, if that makes a difference to the OP.
 
EF-S 15-85mm is an excellent walkabout lens. I have one on my 7DII probably 80-90% of the time.
 
The EF-S 15-85 is a superb lens with good range, if it's within your budget. Not to be confused with the older and long superseded 17-85 which isn't as good quality.
 
Depending on what you're shooting of course, but I would also recommend the 17-55: the build quality wasn't L, but the IQ definitely was. Really liked using that lens but had to get rid of it once I moved to FF. Relatively good value too: just imagine how much a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS would cost if it existed!
 
Nifkin said:
Depending on what you're shooting of course, but I would also recommend the 17-55: the build quality wasn't L, but the IQ definitely was. Really liked using that lens but had to get rid of it once I moved to FF. Relatively good value too: just imagine how much a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS would cost if it existed!
Click to expand...

It does exist, about £1,500.

EDIT: Ah, not with IS :banghead:
 
Last edited:
I absolutely love my 18-135 IS Nano when i use my 80D or 650D. I tried another 17-55 f/2.8 when i got my 80D but it wasnt a good experience as far as AF went (never had issues in the past with the 17-55 on my 40D/60D). when i got the 18-135 STM (before getting the Nano) i really couldn't see any difference in sharpness between the 17-55 and the 18-135, at least, not without wanting to see it, and the current verison of IS is much better than the old noisy 17-55 version.

The 15-85 is a good lens, i replaced my old 17-55 with it, but im not sure its that much better than the current STM lenses. It has a good rep though and is wider.

I have a few L lenses, the 24-70 f/2.8mkii included, but i find the 18-135 just works so well unless i need wider or faster. you could get the 10-18 and 18-135 for less than the cost of the 17-55, and have a much more versatile focal range.
 
That's interesting Dave, I'll take a look at those (y)

Many thanks indeed for the replies, very much appreciated.
 
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 might be worth a look as it's probably half the price of the Canon equivalent. But I don't think there's much between them performance wise?
 
woof woof said:
Waaay back I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and thought it was excellent and actually a bit too sharp for portraits. Back then the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 wasn't out but I would still have chosen the Tamron or Sigma f2.8 over it as, as far as I remember, they're much smaller and lighter, if that makes a difference to the OP.
Click to expand...
Had the Tamron 17-50 IS version for a spin and there wasn't much in it, size/weight wise. Non IS version is smaller though.

IQ of the Canon was better than both Tamrons, marginally. Can't speak for the Siggy.
 
Last edited:
And a PS... I don't usually mention reliability unless there are known issue but isn't the 17-55mm f2.8 Canon's most problematic lens? If that's the case and if there's something else that could get somewhere near that lens for image quality I think I'd be tempted to buy that something else.
 
woof woof said:
And a PS... I don't usually mention reliability unless there are known issue but isn't the 17-55mm f2.8 Canon's most problematic lens? If that's the case and if there's something else that could get somewhere near that lens for image quality I think I'd be tempted to buy that something else.
Click to expand...
Agreed. my very first copy was soft down one side. The replacement was perfect, and i had it for 5 years. These were both purchased just after it came out. The third and forth we soft on one edge. These were purchased just before i went Full frame. The fifth (last year) would focus erratically on my 80D, and when it did nail focus was nothing really outstanding, even compared to the STM lenses i had already. It did seem better on my 650D though, but wasn't brought for that.
 
I have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 ex dc hsm os, well worth a look and a very reasonable price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top