17-55 or 15-85 ? I cannot make up my mind which one to choose. Both have something better over the other one. I'd love to have 15-85 f/2.8, but unfortunately it doesn't exist. I'd really love to have the extra mm and also f/2.8, to shoot the landscapes and in low light conditions. So, my question is - is the glass inside those 2 lenses the same kind, or is it better in 17-55 (not counting the 2 extra elements in 17-55) ?. Does the extra 2 elements make any difference? The price is not too much of an issue. And I don't want other brands. Thanks. 17-55 or 15-85 ? I cannot make up my mind which one to choose. Both have something better over the other one. I'd love to have 15-85 f/2.8, but unfortunately it doesn't exist. I'd... » Read More 17-55 or 15-85 ? I cannot make up my mind which one to choose. Both have something better over the other one. I'd love to have 15-85 f/2.8, but unfortunately it doesn't exist. I'd really love to have the extra mm and also f/2.8, to shoot the landscapes and in low light conditions. So, my question is - is the glass inside those 2 lenses the same kind, or is it better in 17-55 (not counting the 2 extra elements in 17-55) ?. Does the extra 2 elements make any difference? The price is not too much of an issue. And I don't want other brands. Thanks. « Show Less
1324617
Thanks Gav, I appreciate it. I've been leaning more towards the 15-85 because of the extra focal length too. Do you know if the glass quality is the same?
1324618
Yeah, I'd say their elements are in the same class. Both use ultra-low dispersion glass and produce superb images. I think the main difference is that the 17-55 has to use larger elements. Which increases the relative aperture and the price tag.
582403
Before I bought my 18-200, I was often disappointed that I'd miss that great shot because I had the exact wrong lens on my camera (If I had the 18-55, I'd inevitably see something moving in the distance that I'd wanted to shoot,etc..). By the time I'd switched, the opportunity was often gone. The 18-200 meant less missed shots.
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
1114923
The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 is usm lens doesn't have a special piece of glass inside it called "UD" which the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is usm does have. The wide angle difference between the two does really mean something once you consider the crop sensor multiplication factor of 1.6X, so the 15mm end equals 24mm in full frame, 35mm film camera terms. For many people who take snap shots of friends, places, and stuff, the 17-85mm is fine for their needs and can be purchased used on EBay for $200-$250. Keep in mind the 17-85mm isn't built quite as sturdy/durable (so I've learned from reading many reviews) as the newer 15-85mm lens is. If you don't need to print 8"x10" sized pictures for framing(or larger), then you should be happy with the 17-85mm is usm. I have both lenses now and will decide which one to keep within a few months of shooting pictures. Do a Google search on both lenses, there are plenty of reviews/comparisons on the two.
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
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.
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
1251526
I have owned both lens and get a lot more use from the 10-22. It is a very high quality lens from an image standpoint and in fact I sold the 17-40. The 10-22 gives you a true wide angle as well as being a lot of fun. You can use it for portraits with little experimenting....exceptionally sharp and clear lens. GET IT.
41291
I own both. In terms of sharpness and optical quality, they are about the same. As already mentioned, the difference in focal lengths is significant. The 12/2.0 is more useful for landscapes and shooting in confined spaces. The 17/1.8 is better for street photography and portraiture.
2240580
The 17-85 is a nice lens unless you got a poor copy - it has more reach & was designed for the crop cameras. The 17-40 is a superlative lens with astounding deep, rich color and photo quality. If you want longer, you won't be happy but if you can work with this range it is great!
848894
The 24-70 is generally $300-400 more than the 17-55. There is no IS in the 24-70, and it weighs 2.1 lbs almost a pound more than the 17-55. Construction build is way better w/ the 24-70 and has a wee bit longer zoom. Those are probably the only advantages it has over the 17-55. IQ look almost identical from both lenses. I would go with 17-55 mainly for the IS and lower price.
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.
2014123
If you can afford it I'd recommend the 17-55mm IS 2.8. This a basically an L quality lens but doesn't carry the L in it's name because it is a EF-S series lens. It is very fast and the sharpness and overall IQ are comparable to the 24-105L IS. The range on the 17-85mm IS is really great and it is about $400 less but the images are softer and the varible aperature starting at 4 will not be nearly as fast. the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a GREAT walkaround lens and will rarely leave your camera.
220608
The extra stop is amazing... 70mm frames a head and shoulders from 10 feet or so... Works great with my lighting set up and excels in low light... If you want tighter shots from longer distances, the 105 would be the pick! Most portrait photographers prefer 85mm to 105mm- the f/4 just may not give you the background blur you may want... the 70mm-200M f/2.8 L IS II is another awesome choice...
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.