need help deciding between canon 17-85 vs 15-85 II have a canon t1i and want to upgrade to a better lense. I tried the 18-135 but was not impressed with the optical quality. Should I spend 450 for the 17-85, or 740 for the 15-85. Is the 15-85 really worth the extra $$$. Is the 17-85 a bang for the buck. And what does UD glass do ? need help deciding between canon 17-85 vs 15-85 II have a canon t1i and want to upgrade to a better lense. I tried the 18-135 but was not impressed with the optical quality. Should I spend 450... » Read More need help deciding between canon 17-85 vs 15-85 II have a canon t1i and want to upgrade to a better lense. I tried the 18-135 but was not impressed with the optical quality. Should I spend 450 for the 17-85, or 740 for the 15-85. Is the 15-85 really worth the extra $$$. Is the 17-85 a bang for the buck. And what does UD glass do ? « Show Less
597327
"Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105?"Its just a matter of usefulness on a crop camera. The 24-105mm L costs about 50% more than 15-85mm but just isn't very wide at all on a crop camera - 38mm vs. 24mm equivalent focal length respectively. That's a huge difference when you want to capture a landscap, etc. The sheer versatility of the 15-85mm makes for an excellent travel lens on a crop camera without the need for also carrying an ultra-wide.
597328
Check out the problems that the 17 - 85 is having. It appears that after 5 years or so it needs major repairs. I have a 17 -85 and am facing $250.00 in repairs right now and my experience is not unusual. When I called the repair shop, they knew what the problem was as soon as I told them which lens I had.
597329
Sounds good! I'm buying my first digital camera for my daughter and her family. I've locked in on the t1i and 15-85. I really like my 24-105 lens and think that the 15-85 should be a great match for the camera.
597330
one more question. If I get the 15-85 efs lense do I still have to multiple the 1.6X crop factor to get the true range for the lense , just like I would have to do for ef lens on a rebel t1i?
597331
Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105? Despite the relative ratio differences it seems as though the 24-105 is so much more of lens for not much more money. Any thoughts?
597332
Yes, EF-S lens focal lengths are NOT 'pre-adjusted' for APS-C sensored cameras, so, the 35mm film camera equivelent focal length is 24mm-136mm, which is a very useful range.
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
597334
thanks tom. took your advise bought the 15-85. all i can say the image the quality is superb for a non l lense. thank you for recommending this lens.
1321840
I think the T5i is a better choice is you are willing to spend the extra money. It's faster and more capable, plus it comes with the newer 18-55 STM kit lens, which not only has benefits for autofocus during video, but it's also noticeably sharper optically than the older 18-55 kit lens bundled with the T5. The two have the exact same 18MP sensor, however, so image quality is probably very similar. Plus, you get an articulating LCD and capacitive touch screen with the T5i and the screen has more than double the resolution of the T5's. The T5 is not a bad camera despite its use of older technology, it's just way too expensive at it's starting price. If it were to drop down to say, $400-$450, it would be a better buy.
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
659560
Hi glenn: how the 105 mm compares with the 85mm f/1.4 lens for portrait shots thank you for your advice
2165328
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value... » Read More Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat. « Show Less
2240583
I have got the 17-85mm for less than two year and is really a fantastic beginners lens. But it has a very weak and poor mechanical construction. The internal tapes conducting the electronic signals are bad located and over the time the thin conductors break away and you will get err.1. So at that time the beatifull and affordable lens is unusable. My advise go with 17-40mm L lens that is optically superior and far far superior mechanical construction.
405
Thanks everyone for your help. You've explained a lot and it really helps. After your explanations, I looked at my past photos. I'm thinking that maybe the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 will fill my needs. Thanks again.
1872897
I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the... » Read More I would agree with Nav3000. With this camera, I'd go for a nice lens if you can afford one. The 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 are probably your best options as far as versatility and the focal length would pretty much cover you for everything. The image quality of the 85mm 1.4 is outstanding, but is difficult in tight spaces. But if you are looking for something less expensive I would look into the 50mm 1.4 - but its a prime lens so you have to be OK with using your feet to zoom. If it were me, I wouldn't waste the money on the kit lenses. If at all humanly possible I would get the nicest lens I could afford because the image quality is SO worth it. « Show Less
423082
The 18-105 is definitely the sharper lens. In my opinion, even at F4 throughout the entire range, you get amazing results. The 18-200, like most zooms, you have to really stop it down some to get the best results and the telephoto ends tends to get soft focus. It's a good all-in-one but definitely can notice the difference in performance and image quality especially in lower light situations.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
1298394
These are very different lenses; if you want an "upgrade" to your kit lens, the 17-85 has a similar range; while the sigma is a wide-to-tele zoom lens;In my opinion, the best "upgrade" to the kit lens is the 17-55 lens that Canon makes.
108984
The contempporary version of sigma 17-70 has an upgraded array of optics, and is lighter compared to the initial version of Sigma´s 17-70, and more compatible with newer camera models ie canon60D. This is the reason beneath the price difference. I am quite happy with my choice. Lens performance is great, image sharpness is outstanding!
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.