Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

[Communicator]

I'd like to ask for a little collective wisdom on the forum.

I have and EOS 7D and EOS M. The former came with a Canon EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens in the kit.

I have been toying with the idea of buying a Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens, as my 'Travel' lens.
It gets great reviews, but so does the kit lens I already own. Both are good.

Apart from obvious, the EF-S 17-55 being faster, would it be a good buy.

Maybe I should add, I also own a Canon EF 24-105L f4 IS USM, which I think is excellent.

Any thoughts. Many thanks.

[Riggers]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

I've had a 17-55 and the IQ is fantastic. Also being faster its great for portraits and low light conditions and that wide angle and superb IQ right into the corners makes it a good landscape lens on a crop body too. It's also available really cheaply now if you are willing to buy a used version. MPB Photographic have some on offer.

The downside:
- As a walkabout lens I just found it way to short hence I also bought the 24-105 when I was using a 60D even though that lens is really designed for full frame use. On a crop body its a 39-168 so I enjoyed that extra reach and didn't miss the wide angle too much.
- If I had to work with really low light (indoors with no flash) with a 7D I'd be looking to use one of the fast primes like a 50mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 where possible so I found I wasn't using the 17-55 nearly as much as I would have thought.

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

The 15-85mm has a great focal range and is an ideal walkabout lens.
With the 17-55mm you would be duplicating the focal range for the sake of a f/stop or two.

[nickorando]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

For me, the reason to go for the 15-85 is those 2mm at the wide end - makes a huge difference; I would absolutely hate to be without something at least that wide when travelling.

[DrJon]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

They are both excellent lenses, but if you already have the 15-85 I'd be tempted to get a fast prime for low-light work rather than the 17-55, the Sigma 35/1.4 is about the same price and equivalent to a fairly standard focal length (56mm)... although a fast 24mm might be even more useful on crop bodies...

[Riggers]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

I've never seen why you would use a fast wide lens. I've always associated 'wide' with group shots and that usually means stopping down to get everyone in focus and possibly use a flash too. So for me when buying a fast prime a 50mm would be more useful. Or am I missing something?

[DrJon]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

A 24mm converts to a 38.4mm equiv. so just a little wide of "normal" and a great walk-around lens. The aperture is so you can get shots when the light isn't so good. A 30mm would be about 50mm equiv but personally I like a lens a teeny bit wider if it's a non-zoom. The classic street lens is a 35mm (so 22mm for a crop body) but I find that a little wide personally.

[nickorando]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

I've never seen why you would use a fast wide lens. I've always associated 'wide' with group shots and that usually means stopping down to get everyone in focus and possibly use a flash too. So for me when buying a fast prime a 50mm would be more useful. Or am I missing something?

Fast wideangles have a whole host of uses; street photography, environmental portraiture, interiors of buildings just off the top of my head. I use my 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 hugely more than my 50mm f1.4 - it's fast standards I see little point in, TBH, never been much of a fan of 50mm as it's an awkward focal length for most things IMHO, neither wideangle fish nor telephoto fowl.

[Wayne Els]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

I loved the 15-85 as my walk about on a crop. It has really good IQ and a great range. So unless you are desperate for the extra stops I'd see the 17-55 as an expensive distraction. They are meant to have stellar IQ but I think you'd be hard pushed to notice the difference given the 15-85 is apparently after the 17-55 one of the best performing EFS lenses. And as others have said it lacks range at both ends. Whilst you have the mid tele covered with the 24-105 that means carrying another pound of glass with you and you still lose at the wide end.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

For a one camera and one lens combo, I'd rather go in for one of the Sigma 18-250mm lens or Tamron; this would be my ideal combo if I was travelling.

[Communicator]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

Thank you all for your comments and advice.
Reflecting on the collective wisdom above, I think I'll just sit tight with the 15-85, and maybe aspire to an upgrade of my EOS 7D to a full-frame EOS 6D body. That might be money better spent.

Thanks again for all your thoughts. Appreciated.

[Mightyquin]

Re: Your thoughts on and EF-S 15-85 IS USM or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

Maybe you should stop and think again about what you want to achieve?

Why do you want to move from your 7D to FF? What will FF do for you that you can't do with your 7D?

If you are looking at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 as an upgrade to your current lens, also consider the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 - I chose that over the Canon because I personally think the real world results were better, and it's a smaller/lighter lens which will make it nicer to carry around!

The constant 2.8 widest aperture was essential for me as I like to meter with an incident light meter for some situations and don't have to think about adjusting exposure if I zoom in/out. It also means a brighter viewfinder!