EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

[Adrian Marsh]

Hi, this is my first ever post so bear with me. I have a Canon 7D with a Canon 70-300mm lens and, at the wide angle end, a Canon 28-135mm. I have never been entirely happy with the 28-135 and I'm also looking for a lens to give me a wider angle for landscape and portrait photography. At the moment the options I'm considering are selling the 28-135 lens and buy the Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens, or buy the Canon 17-40mm and keep the 28-135 (to bridge the gap between 40mm and 70mm on the zoom). Any views on which is the better lens between the 17-40 and the 15-85? Or any view on any other comparable lenses? Also (probably really dumb question) but why is the 15-85 IS but the 17-40 isn't? Does it make a difference? Thanks very much. Adrian

[S_J_P]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Hi Adrian and welcome to the forum!

Your dilemma is a common one, and has been discussed many times by many photographers. The question you need to ask yourself is what you want from the lens, and whether you'll be upgrading to a full frame camera in the future. A good lens will last you through a number of cameras, and is a great investment if you future-proof your choice.

The 15-85 is a cracking lens, usefully wider than the 17- or 18- lenses, has a decent telephoto end, has image stabilisation (useful at the long end, but of limited value at the short end, hence it's omission from the 17-40), but it suffers from distortion at the short end (easily correctable in DPP or other software), has an odd filter size of 72mm, and needs to be stopped down a little to achieve its best. It's also only compatible with crop-sensor cameras.

The 17-40's an excellent lens, great image quality on a crop body (if a little soft at the edges on full frame), constant f/4 aperture, sharper than the 15-85 when wide open, water resistant, and uses Canon standard filters of 77mm which means you can share them across lenses. It's range is limited though, and never goes particularly wide on a crop body. For me, it's a bit of a "mediocre" lens, doing what it does very well, but not being spectacular in any way.

The 17-55 may be another option though I've not used one, its faster than the other two at f/2.8, has image stabilisation, but it's crop sensor compatible only, and costs more than the other options.

How about the 10-22? That's usefully wider than anything else mentioned so far, and by all accounts is a great lens. I didn't get on with it though. It's crop compatible only again.

You also need to think about whether you're after a compromise lens which covers a broad range, or whether it will be the start of investment in a series of no compromise lenses. The L series glass is expensive, but is a good investment in the long term if you're going to invest time and money in building a system. The EF-S lenses are more of a compromise, but cheaper (not necessarily singly, but definitely for a series covering a broad range if focal lengths), and if you're not going to be using them wide open, in a storm, for 8 hours a day for five days a week then they'll be perfect.

[colin C]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Hello and welcome to the Forum Adrian.

I was going to offer some advice, but Steve has already mentioned everything I could have said.

[DrJon]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

I also agree with 99% of what Steve says, it's an excellent reply. I would only disagree about the 72mm filter and say, IMHO, the "standard" (i.e. commonist) Canon filter sizes are (in no particular order) 58mm, 72mm and 77mm (probably with 67mm in 4th spot). Also I think 72mm is the filter size of the 28-135 you already have. Quick list of 72mm filter lenses:

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
EF 85mm f/1.2 II USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
TS-E 45mm f/2.8

Do note I think 15mm is pretty wide (24mm equiv), while 17-18mm is less so (the 17-55 f2.8 is a great, if slightly heavy, lens though). The 10-22 is also great, but you only get wide.

John

[Wayne Els]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

The 15-85 was a permanent fixture on my 500D and for me was a great walkabout lens. It has good IQ, range and isn't overly expensive.
I nearly bought a 17-40L but on a crop I felt it was too limited in its range and not wide enough.
Likewise the 17-55 is imho a super quality kit lens which wasn't wide enough, long enough and is too expensive. That said it's IQ is apparently outstanding.
Now I have a 6D I will probably buy a 17-40 for it or look at wide angle 3rd party options and sell my 15-85 as it's surplus to requirements.
They are all good, it's just a matter of what you actually want.

[DP the Snapper]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

By coincidence I have just ordered a 15 - 85 - comments on this Forum plus other outside reviews made my mind up.

I ordered it from HDEWCameras

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-s-15-85mm-f35-56-is-usm-235-p.asp

They are very competitive and helpful. I have no connection with the Company other than being a satisfied customer after having bought a couple of lenses from them.

Dave

[DrJon]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Dave - I think you'll enjoy that... a lot!

BTW I'm not sure what the best wide-angle on a 6D is, on a crop body the 10-22 is a no-brainer for going really wide and the 15-85 for a wide and general purpose lens is again an easy one. On FF there's the 24-x fy (where x = 70 or 105, y = 2.8 or 4) lenses that go quite wide, are somewhat heavy and perform well. Wider than that it gets tricky. I've never been happy with the price/performance of the 17-40 on FF (the corners are very soft wide-open and that's only f4, so it wouldn't suit me, although it's really quite nice at f5.6 and down where it is a bit of a bargain) or the 16-35 II which again isn't that good wide-open (although at least that's f2.8, but the corners are amazingly dark at the wide end - down 2.8 stops) and the 17-40 is better than it when they're both stopped down. I skipped those entirely and have the 14/2.8 and 8-15/f4, the former being sharp (plus having amazingly low distortion) and the later amazingly sharp (with bonus purple bits). Of course there's a lot more to lens performance than sharpness, but it doesn't hurt as it's one of a few things you can't add back in later. Frankly most modern mid/upper range lenses are pretty good and will give great results, even the kit lenses tend to do sharp pretty well... it's a good time to be a photographer, on any budget.

John

(Edit) P.S. err, not so good financially to be a Pro, for most was better a decade ago, but for kit it's good for all.

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Hello Adrian and welcome to the forum.

Your 28-135mm will only produce good images at it's best.
Both the 15-85mm and 17-40mm L lenses are far superior to the 28-135mm lens that you own.
The EF-S 15-85mm IS lens is a great walkabout lens with useful focal range.
The 17-40mm L lens (as Steve states above) produces great images on the 7D crop camera and is a "L" lens.

I would consider the EF-S 15-85mm lens as it is wide at 15mm and has a useful focal range plus it has an image stabiliser (IS).
If you are happy with the crop cameras and not considering full-frame camera in the near future then go for the 15-85mm, you will not be disappointed, it is a great lens.

hope it helps

[mikep]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Hi Adrian, and welcome to the forum from me too!

I had a very similar decision process to you a little while ago! I'll just say that I now have a 550D and a 7D (both 1.6 crop), and use the 70-300 L, and 15-85 (and 50mm F1.4). Love all these lenses. The 15-85 on a crop is just a great walkabout lens. If you're staying with crop cameras, obviously, I'd suggest the 15-85... I'm very happy I went for that lens.

All the best, Mike.

[Adrian Marsh]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Very many thanks for all the useful advice here. I will almost certainly go for the 15-85mm but thanks for helping me to make up my mind

[Wayne Els]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

John, thanks for the thoughts on FF UWA lenses. I think I'll start a new thread about it rather than run off topic here.

[collywobbles]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Sorry if someone has already said this ( I've just skipped through the answers quickly) The reason the 15-85mm has IS is that its effective range is 24-136mm and therefore benefits from image stablisation being, effectively, a medium telephoto at the long end, Whereas the 17-40mm is more suited to f/f where it is only ever a wide-angle.

[DrJon]

Re: EF 17-40 v EF-S 15-85

Although if you want to shoot video other than from a tripod IS is pretty much a must. I assume that is why Canon are releasing a bunch of wide-angle primes with built-in IS.

John