DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 15-85 Vs 17-40
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2010 12:14:04 AM · #1
I wish to upgrade my kit lens Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

I am considering Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM & Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. No plans to switch to FF camera body atleast in near future. I will like to know about your experience on these both lenses. If you have any more options in your mind (to confuse me a little bit more :)) you are welcome.

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 00:15:10.
 08/27/2010 12:33:50 AM · #2
The 15-85 has a rep as being near L glass quality. I recently bought the earlier 17-85 from Scalvert, and I love the focal range. I find I am leaving my camera bag behind more often and just carrying a spare battery and memory card in my pocket. If I were choosing between the two, it would definitely be the 15-85 for the greater focal range. That would be more important to me than the L glass.
 08/27/2010 03:10:43 AM · #3
Never used a 17-85... So I can't really speak to that lens, although the MTF charts tell the tale.. The 15-85 is better optically.

Beyond that, the extra 2mm is nice, and the 4 stop IS is killer.. I was just out doing some night shots with it... 1/4 second hand held? No problem!

I'll process a couple and drop them here in a second.. In the mean time, just admire the beautiful star bursts it will produce.. :)


08/27/2010 04:24:21 AM · #4
Soo, here are a few processed images showing off the IS.. All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.

0.5 sec

0.25 sec

0.25 sec

1/30th sec, showing off auto-switching IS (mode 1/ mode 2).
 08/27/2010 10:03:36 AM · #5
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Soo, here are a few processed images showing off the IS.. All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.

0.5 sec

0.25 sec

0.25 sec

1/30th sec, showing off auto-switching IS (mode 1/ mode 2).


Pretty nuts, all in all... thanks for sharing these! Any interest in posting unprocessed 100% crops of one or a couple of these? :)
08/27/2010 12:41:57 PM · #6
Originally posted by mycelium:
[quote=coryboehne] Soo, here are a few processed images showing off the IS.. All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.

Pretty nuts, all in all... thanks for sharing these! Any interest in posting unprocessed 100% crops of one or a couple of these? :)


Do you really want these high ISO originals? Or would you prefer just a nice test image out of the lens, something that shows enough detail to judge the performance of the lens, rather than the poor performance of my body @ higher ISOs?
 08/27/2010 12:45:02 PM · #7
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by mycelium:
[quote=coryboehne] Soo, here are a few processed images showing off the IS.. All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.

Pretty nuts, all in all... thanks for sharing these! Any interest in posting unprocessed 100% crops of one or a couple of these? :)


Do you really want these high ISO originals? Or would you prefer just a nice test image out of the lens, something that shows enough detail to judge the performance of the lens, rather than the poor performance of my body @ higher ISOs?


I'd think what he's interested in is exactly that: how well does the lens do at allowing hand-held, 1/4 second exposures at high ISO?

R.
 08/27/2010 12:46:41 PM · #8
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by mycelium:
[quote=coryboehne] Soo, here are a few processed images showing off the IS.. All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.

Pretty nuts, all in all... thanks for sharing these! Any interest in posting unprocessed 100% crops of one or a couple of these? :)


Do you really want these high ISO originals? Or would you prefer just a nice test image out of the lens, something that shows enough detail to judge the performance of the lens, rather than the poor performance of my body @ higher ISOs?


Yeah, I'd love to see what a 100% crop of this one looks like



maybe somewhere on the second story where the brickwork would really show how much sharpness you can retain at 1/2 second handheld.

ETA: I know all about poor performance at high ISOs, so your own results are probably more useful to me than ones taken with a "better" camera ~_~

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 12:47:41.
 08/27/2010 12:50:15 PM · #9
Ok..





Let me know what you think. :)

ETA: Good shooting technique means as much as a great IS system when you're trying to do this.. Don't expect to drink a pot of coffee and go out shooting 1/2 sec handheld shots..

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 12:55:30.
 08/27/2010 01:07:43 PM · #10
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Let me know what you think. :)

ETA: Good shooting technique means as much as a great IS system when you're trying to do this.. Don't expect to drink a pot of coffee and go out shooting 1/2 sec handheld shots..


Thanks, Cory! Those are definitely instructive. What I get from these images is that you can get very good sharpness with IS at 1/2 second. Really quite impressive, and makes the idea of trying to shoot without IS or a tripod under these conditions quite a joke. With the first of the two, blur is hardly noticeable, and in both, it's insignificant at web resolution.

Roger on the coffee-drinking :)
 08/27/2010 01:15:57 PM · #11
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Let me know what you think. :)

ETA: Good shooting technique means as much as a great IS system when you're trying to do this.. Don't expect to drink a pot of coffee and go out shooting 1/2 sec handheld shots..


Thanks, Cory! Those are definitely instructive. What I get from these images is that you can get very good sharpness with IS at 1/2 second. Really quite impressive, and makes the idea of trying to shoot without IS or a tripod under these conditions quite a joke. With the first of the two, blur is hardly noticeable, and in both, it's insignificant at web resolution.

Roger on the coffee-drinking :)


Excellent.. Glad to be of assistance. :)
 08/27/2010 02:59:15 PM · #12
Not apples to apples but you can safely assume the 15-85 will be noticeably better. This is with the 17-85 on an EOS 50D, handheld @ ISO 1250, 1/5 second. No flash.


Here is a 100% crop of the output from my RAW converter before any additional NR or any other PP:

full sized view

Perhaps when I can afford to spend more I will upgrade to the newer version, but I am very happy with the results I've been getting from the 17-85. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone on a budget. (And Scalvert gave me a sweet deal on it to make up for the 20D that self destructed after 2 1/2 months.)

Message edited by author 2010-08-27 15:05:42.
 08/28/2010 04:51:36 AM · #13
If I push my budget a little higher then I get stuck gain with two lenses Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS Vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.

Right now I am using canon 400D. I think 24-105 will offer me nice focal range along with my wide angle 10-20. Whereas I read very nice reviews of 24-70 regarding sharpness. Can anybody will like to guide me on this issue?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/07/2025 04:01:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/07/2025 04:01:55 PM EST.