Camera Labs

Hi

I've had a 7D with a 15-85 mm lens for a bit over a year. It preforms well, but there are some things I've grown a bit tired of. The vingetting at wide angle from 15-20 mm pretty much ruins the pictures, even with lens compensation in LR it's still there, and it's not very sensitive to light. And I find it pretty heavy.

So I've been looking at an upgrade
17-40 mm f 4.0 L lens
17-55 f 2,8 lens.

The 17-40 mm has some pretty good reviews, for crop frame camera, and its a bit cheaper, plus it's lighter than 15-85 mm, but it's only f 4,0 and 40 mm doesn't give me much zoom, so I don't know if I'll gain much from it.
Being an L lens it has weather seal and since i shoot a lot outdoors it might be a good thing.
But it is cheaper, and if I go for full frame I'll be abel to keep it. Accually it's the f 4.0 I don't like about it.

The 17-55 has also had some pretty good reviews, it's f 2,8 but it is a bit pricy.

If I have to spend a lot of money on a new lens, to serve the same purpose as the one I have, then is should be a lens where I can feel the difference and not that I have 2 lenses that does the same
So will I feel the upgrade from 15-85 mm? or is it a waste of money?

I have thought about going for a 5d in a year or two, but buying a lens that doesn't satisfy my needs because I might buy a 5 d some day, doesn't realle make much sense either


Michael

If you're truly looking for a lens to replace your 15-85, then you should sell the 15-85 to offset the cost of the new lens. If you also buy the replacement lens used or refurbished, you can save even more. That said, it would help us give recommendations if you would tell us the budget for the new lens.

If you are mostly taking issue with the lens performance at 15-20mm, consider supplementing it with a wide-angle fast prime rather than replacing the 15-85 all together. Canon makes a 20mm f2.8, and Sigma makes a 20mm f1.8 (although this is reportedly quite soft at f1..

If you do decide that you need to replace the 15-85, unfortunately I can't think of any lens that's clearly better. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM may have f2.8, but I think it suffers from similar vignetting, the focal range is neither as wide nor as long, and the 17-55 is even heavier than the 15-85.

The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM, in my opinion, doesn't have enough focal range to be used a general purpose walk-around. Reviews generally suggest that the 17-40 does not suffer from vignetting issues, and it is slightly lighter than the 15-85. Also note that the 15-85 has f4 or better until 26mm, and f4.5 up to 37mm. So the 17-40mm f4 would not be appreciably faster.

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non VC) may be your best bet. (At approximately $450, you may actually make money if you sell your 15-85 to fund the purchase.) It weighs much less than the 15-85, does not suffer from vignetting issues, has a constant f2.8 aperture, and is reportedly very good optically.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM

What sort of photos do you take, I haven`t found the vignetting so be much of an issue, have you got examples?

I have used it a bit for more wide angle landscape photos and then usually around f8-f10, the vignetting disappears then pretty well.

The 17-55 2.8 is usm is bigger and heavier again, so agree that the 17-50 tamron maybe the best option.

Where do you need the big aperture at the far end or close in?
Have you got a wide angle lens?

I have gone around in circles with all this stuff, in the end I got the low light covered with the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.
In hindsight should have bought the 50 1.4 , now looking at something like the 35 f2.

The 24-105 f4 would be a possibility if weather sealing was a priority

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

you'll find that all professional wide angle-medium telephoto lenses have vignetting issues at their widest focals. so it's not about the quality of the lens. (considering the 15-85mm to be an upgrade for the kit lens)
if you want something with less vignetting & distortsions try looking at the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 I.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

If I were in your shoes I would probably get

Tamron 17-50 non VC and Canon 85/1.8


This gives you a similar range and faster lenses with equivalent or better IQ.

The 15-85 wasn't available when I bought my camera so I run a 10-22 and 24-105 combo. The 15-85 is supposed to have the same excellent IQ as the 17-55IS but it is the variable and slower aperture that puts me off.


Surely you only need a single lens when you are away from the house or outdoors. If this is the case then I think you may already own the best lens for the job.

Maybe you could look at a fast prime for indoor use like a sigma 30/1.4, Canon 28/1.8, 50/1.8.

Have you considered getting the tamron 17-50/2.8 for indoor use and keeping the 15-85 for when you go out?


Just a thought

mirageII

_________________
Canon EOS 400D, EF-S 18-55mm, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 MK I, EF-S 10-22mm, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 85mm f/1.8
Canon 430EX II, Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, Arca Swiss P0
Panasonic GF3, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8

MY FLICKR!

Well I also have a 10-22 mm canon lens, so I do have wide angle and I love the image quality.

As for the pictures it's everyday photograph, mostly outdoors and some indoors. I'm not a professional.

I haven't thought of the 24-105 i don't think it gives me much wide angle on a crop frame camera. Is that a problem for you?

I live north of the artctic circle so it gets pretty dark and

M

So it wouldnt be much of an upgrade with the 17-40 or 17-55?

I do have a 50 mm 1/4, but I rarely use it because it has a too narrow field of view.
I have thought about a wide angle prime, but if i have the same experience with that as well, then then it would be a waste of money.

M

Your 15-85 already goes pretty wide. If you want to test whether a wide prime would be suitable, set your 15-85 at 20mm and see if the field of view is appropriate. You should also test out 24mm, 28mm, and 30mm (the other standard focal lengths of wide angle primes).

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM

if you keep in mind that the difference between 2.8 and 4 is only one stop.
The only way to make a big difference is to go to 2 and 1.4.

I can appreciate that its going to be hard when the outside conditions are dark, especially when compared to sunny Australia ( well except here ,Gippsland can often be overcast), but this is where you need to take into account the limits of your gear.

I found that even bright lenses have their limitations, ie small dof and light is not always where you want it.

Would a flash unit get you out of trouble?
I use mine a lot when shooting people during the day

A flash with the 15-85 had me find the love again with that lens.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

A flash makes sense, and I propably don't use mine as much as I should, people tend to get a bit scared of it, and I find it hard to get realy great results, especially outside.
Accually in snowy conditions there are pretty big contrast between dark and light, and the light meter tends to get the exposure too dark, even when you compensate so the background looks nice, people tend to be all black. So using a flask makes a lot of sense and I do use flash. But picking up a flash on a dogsled, when out fishing or adjusting the flash at -15 C can be quite challenging, and I would risk the gear to get banged up.

But the images get so much better with flash, some times the popup flash is enough, so why bring an expensive camera if you don't want to do that big ekstra. Btw the popup flash makes shades at wide angle.
Accually I have experimented with painting the snow with light while doing long exposures of northern lights. Fun to be creative, but a bit hard to control.

Maybe I should use the flash more, but it doesn't change the vingetting.

Sounds like a challenging environment.


If you do use the external flash and then step down the 15-85 to f8, that may well eliminate the vignetting.
When using the flash I generally up the exposure a bit and drop the fel a bit.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

you can also try and check sigma 17-70 F2.8 .. this lens is half the price of 15-85 and i was caught up between these two lenses and eventually went ahead with 15-85 even though its expensive because i felt 15-85 has got build quality and i am not much into night photography so for me canon suited well...

_________________
Canon EOS 5D mk III|Canon EOS 7D | 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM | 400 F5.6 L USM

I have owned a 7D with 17-55 for about two years now and I have found it to be a perfect combination. The range is very nice for a standard lens, f/2.8 provides very good control over the DoF, and the quality this lens is capable of is very good. It is a big lens though, seeing that the 17-85 is about the same size as the 15-85...



I think it is the best possible standard lens on the 7D.

_________________
Canon 7D | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

As for primes, well I just prefer zoom because I don't have to knock down a wall to get my shot or need to run and jump over tables to get there in time for that snapshot from across the room
If it turns out I need two primes to fill my needs, then it's as expensive as the 17-55 f 2,8

Is it worth the money to get that step up from 15-85?
Or should I just learn to live with it and use the flash more often?
The thing I like about the 17-40 f 4.0 L is that if I at some point upgrade to FF, I will still be abel to use it and the lighter weight also attracts me. But f4.0 isn't better than my 15-85 mm at its widest, but it is better zoomed in. The review on photozone.de says it isn't all that impressive.

So is there much to gain from spending all that money on a new lens?

M

When I decided to upgrade my Nikon D80, I looked at all available options. I ended up buying the 7D with 17-55 lens because the combination makes perfect sense.

I considered the 17-40, but it is f/4 (too slow), the range is very short (too short), and after getting a full frame it will be very wide, meaning you still require a standard lens.

Is the 17-55 worth it if you already have the 15-85? That is difficult to say. I love f/2.8 because I often shoot wide open, never use a flash and dislike high ISO. For me the 17-55 is well worth the extra over the 15-85 because it fits my use. If you want shallow DoF, great low light performance and a versatile range, the 17-55 might well be worth the upgrade. (If money is tight, a Sigma or Tamron might do, but I don't use budget third party lenses.)

_________________
Canon 7D | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS