I also have the 15-85 which I bought 2nd hand. I love it. Fast quiet focus. Quite a heavy lens compared to a kit lens. Really havent noticed a problem with the F3.5 to 5.6 aperture. If photographing indoors it tends to be around the 24mm mark which is F4 anyway. (15mm=3.5, 24mm=4.0, 35mm=4.5). The image stabilization is great, so that also helps.
I have a 15-85. Purchased new along with my 7D soon after it was introduced. After more than 11 years and close to 200,000 shutter count, both camera and lens still working great. And although the 15-85 is not rated as weatherproof, I have used it many times in pretty rough wet weather for extended periods, and I never encountered any issues with it, and there is no dust nor fungus inside the glass elements. It just keeps chugging along. So from my personal experience, it was well worth the price that I paid. That being said, I also have a 5D II with a 24-105L lens. Comparing the 2 lenses side by side, I don't feel that the L lens is any better built than the 15-85. In fact I prefer the 15-85 in the way it handles, the zoom ring at the front compared to being at the rear for the L.
On my 70 D I didn’t find myself getting too much more value out of the 15 so I returned it it is sharper than 17-85 tho I thought long and hard with another was going to keep it or not then I remembered I never looked at my pictures with the 17-85 and said damn this isn’t sharp enough ya know
I purchased the 15-85 after much debate because of the cost, but I have the 80D and require wide angled lenses when we travel to places like Jerusalem, Istanbul, Italy, etc. When you find yourself in the bizarre or narrow streets of old cities the wide angle lens is very helpful so I stay with the APC lenses because of the 1.6 crop factor. Although the 18-135 USM lens is a great lens from a telephoto and sharpness perspective, the zoom ring isn't very smooth and my videos were jerky as I zoomed in and out. I also found when using the 18-135 I rarely zoomed in beyond 85mm, so the telephoto length of 85mm was perfect for me. And the videos are nice and smooth now. VERY Happy with the purchase and recommend it.
Wow, interesting to discover that this lens now costs 2 time more than when I bought it. Long time ago I was researching 18-135mm and then I found the 15-85mm and was hesitating a lot on which one should I buy, as 15-85mm was more expensive. So after weighing up for some time, I ordered the 18-135mm from ebay, at very good price; it was originally part of a bundle, but the body was sold, so the lens was sold without a box. When the package arrived and I unwrapped it, to my amazement, there was 15-85mm in it. I never asked why and how, and the seller never asked the lens back. Previously I was shooting with 18-55mm and I got to tell you, there is great difference in the image quality when you use 15-85mm. I believe the same goes for the rest of cheap Canon lenses, like 55-250mm. Significantly less amount of noise, much sharper, much brighter, also better colors and contrast, it's just another level. I have taken some of my best shots with it. There is some vignetting when shooting at both ends, 18mm or less and 80mm or more. Variable f is also a drawback, but it really depends on what are you going to use it for. Another drawback would be lens creep, you need to hold the zoom ring at the desired focal length if pointed down past certain angle. It is great walk-around and landscape lens imho, but I've used it for some portraits and it does good job. The lens is sturdy built, heavy, feels great to work with. AF is petty fast. It also contains UD glass, greatly reducing chromatic aberrations. I guess I got lucky before, I wouldn't buy this lens for this price. But the build quality and the image quality is great.
Ok it’s expensive but depends what type of photography you do. I mainly use it for travels where I need various ranges at anytime and this lens has a fantastic range without needing to swap lenses all the time. There is a significant difference between 15 and 18 ( I also own the 18-135 but rarely use for that difference) especially when photographing indoors. There is a bit of distortion at 15 but when really an issue can be corrected in post processing. This lens is close to the full frame 24-105 which covers most needs during travel. I always carry another lens 10-22 or 70-300 but the hassle of switching lenses all the time makes me love the 15-85. It is sharp. So really depends what you usage is going to be. Yes 5.6 didn’t make it an ideal lens for portraits but in those circumstances you can swap with a portrait lens. It is a bit heavy with a Canon 80D and may be the reason for me switching in the future ( my neck after a whole day of travelling with it starts requesting for change)?” but cannot find many alternatives at Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic that have the same quality or just simply the same range.
as someone who has this lens it is a lot sharper than the 17-50 and also has faster autofocus than the 17-50. this lens was my go-to lens for almost everything as it the closest APS-C lens to a 24-105. the variable f-stop is annoying sure however if you're going for sharpness and multi-use performance I would defiantly go with the 15-85mm.
its on my short list, I am selling the 3 kit lenses that have(dont ask how I ended up with 3) but my plan for my 80D is my 10-20mm, 15-85mm, a 60mm macro, or possibly the 65mm macro, and a the 70-300mm L with a 1.4x, I chose these because they are good performers, sharp, and relatively affordable used. I still need some primes, but I like zooms
Years ago I owned the canon 40d with the 15-85 but sold them both for the canon 70d and since bought the 10-18 IS STM and 18-135 IS STM. The 10-18 on a crop body is 16mm to 28.8mm whereas the 15 is 24mm so I am Much wider with no noise with the 10-18 and swap them out for the 18-135 and if I need longer I throw on my 55-250 IS STM and I too own the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS & 70-200 2.8 OS. So yeah I agree that now a day's the canon 15-85 is Too outdated, was a Great lens ten years ago but not worth buying now.
Because this lens is unknown, the demand for it on the used lens market is low. You can pick on up for half price of the original. For me, as a walk around lens, the focal leg th is ideal when compared to the 18-135. I prefer the extra 3mm at the wide end than the extra reach on the wide end.
Pair a 10-18 and 18-135 both IS both STM you get silent fast focussing from 10 to 135. Add some fast primes (50 and a 24) and a 70-200 f/4 and you got a really good versatile set for travel, wideangle, portraits, videography, street probably $1000 or so :D
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use this lens. I think if someone is to drop that much money on one lens it's likely going to be the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, or even a used 24-105/24-70 f4 L lens. Any of those four would suit someone better for the price. And the last two would be able to serve them on full frame as well if the end up on that route
I can understand if your view of the price is for a brand-new price. I haven't checked again in my local store about how much it is brand new, but I believe it wouldn't change as far as 4 years ago, the video's year. I come from the future to tell that here in Indonesia, the 15-85mm is even cheaper if bought secondhand, an actual third of the 799 usd, thanks to a lot of others migrating to mirrorless lens and camera setups. A used 15-85mm + used 7D mark 1 is by far the best value for money for a high quality DSLR general setup, and can still perform strongly beside the new ones in terms of photography uses.
It's too expensive brand new, that's why I got mine for half the price. I think it all boils down to what you generally shoot. The extra 2mm on the wide end is more useful for me as I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture. I've had an 18-200mm but I rarely use the 200mm so I went to upgrade with this lens. And if you're like me shooting mostly landscapes and walking around, you wouldn't need the extra stop of aperture. This is a great walk around lens in my opinion. Great range with great image quality. Just don't buy it brand new. 😜
Mark Anthony Luz Agreed, I got mine for around 300 gbp and feel that's a far more realistic price. It's quite a heavy lens though but nicely put together.
For a sharp APS-C lens around the $800 mark I would go with the sigma 18 to 35 f1.8. It doesn’t have the focal range but it is just about if not the sharpest APS-C out there and fast. Especially if you plan on sticking with crop sensors cameras.
It is a bit pricey but I grabbed one use and I'm happy I did. I have the 18-135 Nano USM and it's night and day difference. The 15-85 is one stop faster in reality because I'm not happy with the 18-135 unless it is stopped down to f/8 but the 15-85 performs nicely wide open. For video get the 18-135 and for stills the 15-85 is much better.
The 15-85 is far better than 18-135. Its as good as 17-55 but gives u wider view and further zoom, at about same price. Clear winner. 18-135,. 18-55 and 17-85 are about the same quality. 55-250 is great quality/price zoom. 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 do the trick of fast, cheap and great quality lenses. I would love to have the 17-55 but 15-85 is better built and more reliable general purpose lens.
I have a 17-85mm lens. In fact, I have two of them because the auto focus on the first one gave up the ghost. Be warned! That is a known weakness of the 17-85mm lens: after a while the autofocus quits working. I also recently acquired the much-better 15-85mm lens. In fact, I got both it and a Canon 7D body for a grand total price of $380 (used), which I think is a pretty good deal.
The Canon 15-85mm IS Lens is a decent lens... It has some creeping issues and mine would sometimes 'stick' when trying to zoom and I had to give it a wiggle to be able to Zoom properly.. I'm sure I read that this is a common issue!? I would suggest to get the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8.
The lense is slow, so it's not really useful at 85mm for portraits, the range is good. IS is good to have, etc The only use for this lense I see is when your trying to make photos for documentation. The range helps there a lot, being slow is not optimal, but at least there is IS. Still, if you are going for 5.6 or even F7 on your shots, because you want a decent wide depth of field and not focus on something specifically ... it sounds like a lense with gives you a lot of versatility in the range. With that said, it still sounds like a niche product.
If one is going to spend more to supplant one of Canon's quite good EF-S 18-135mm f3.5~f5.6 zooms, a17-50 or 17-55 f2.8 zoom is a better choice for an APS-C kit. My grab-and-go kit, initially with an EOS 760D, and now with an 80D, includes an EF-S 10-18 f4.5~5.6 IS STM, an EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, and an EF-S 55-250 f/4~5.6 IS STM. Reviews of the newish Sigma 18-35 f1.8 suggest that it may be a better choice for the steady handed than the 12 year old design of the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. Canon's new EF 70-300mm f/4~5.6 IS II USM is reputed to at least equal the quality of the EF-S 55-250mm f/4~5.6 IS STM while providing more reach, though at the cost of a higher price and slightly greater weight.
it's 300-330€ used on ebay in Germany. therefore great value! optically probably the best EF-S lens. it's worth it, and I really missed it while I was briefly with Nikon. But I'm back to 80D, looking forward to 90D, and the first thing I did was to buy the 15-85mm again. the other lenses I want/need are the Sigma 8-16mm, Tokina 11-20mm f2.8, EF 50mm F1.4, EF 100mm f2.8 macro, and the EF 70-300.
I am confused about Jim's requirements on several points. He does not mention what his current APS-C camera is, what he mainly shoots or will shoot, wants to upgrade to vaporware 90D and then to vaporware 7D III. Regarding image quality, many pro reviews mention 80D having better image quality than 7D II - 7D II excels only in sports and nature photography. So not knowing his requirements, difficult to suggest anything. Agreed with you Matt on your assessment.
I sort of fancy this lens for travel... I think there is good reason to go used market for some kit, this lens is around £200 here (so probably about $200 equivalent) used with a 24-month exchange like for like/current market value warranty, the 18-135 STM about the same and the 18-135 nano USM about £270, at this level I guess desired focal range is the decider, personally I seldom find 18mm on the wide end to be not wide enough, but 85mm on the long end may be a little short... For me these are decent travel lenses, at home I mostly use primes, they just become a little impractical while traveling and keeping kit to a minimum.
Spot on evaluation Matt. I would also highly recommend the 70-300 IS II over the 55-250. The AF speed build quality and sharpness are in another league compared to the 55-250. When tracking fast moving subjects that AF speed is noticeable for target acquisition. It doesn't sound like Jim is going FF but he has the option (and they have higher resale values as well).
Sharpnesswise there's a huge difference between the original 55-250 and the newer and much better 55-250 STM. I'm not sure the 70-300 IS II is sharper than that one, and it certainly couldn't have faster AF. But I am sure it's bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive.
I think it replaced the 17-85 at a time when everybody was looking for 2.8 and 1.8 lenses. I think the 17-55 2.8 is cheaper and its amazing. I personally use the sigma 17-50 and at the price it's amazing.
I have a 17 to 85 that I use on my 70D The 15-85 is a great but at three times the price of the one I have with only moderately better performance I can’t put it on the budget list either not when the 17-85 can be had for 80 like I paid for it
This was my first lens purchase (back in 2011 according to Amazon) and I don't even remember what made me buy it. Just wanted to add, it has been a very durable lens. It's travelled with me for years, hiking, climbing, exploring deserts and cities, and is the oldest surviving lens in my collection. Probably my favorite for when I want to shoot the sun. I avoid using it when shooting raw though because I'm too picky and lazy to deal with its distortions.
Rx100 Vs Dslr which is better for bokeh means blur backgrounds rx100 has 1.8 aparture but Dslr has 3.6 aparture which is better for portrait bigger sensor 3.6 aparture or small sensor and 1.8 aparture which is better for blur background rx100 is cheaper than d3400 dual kit which is better please tell me sir kindly takey questions as your next video discussion please
It's underrated, because it was (since 2009) being too expensive, and 2nd, it's being "only" F3.5-5.6, but it's the "one lens to shoot it all" for Canon APS-C. I've found 699 EUR always being expensive, but so is the Nikon 16-85, a lens which is way similar, also with IS (here: VR) and 24-120mm in FF terms, the Canon 15-85 USM is 24-136mm in FF terms. I've searched a hell long time for a decent zoom for my 40D, 50D's...and know all the reviews back into its heyday. Finally pulled the trigger, 150 bucks...is alright, 2nd hand. Still have the mentioned 16-85 VR on my D7000, also have the D700, and 5D, 5D II...and the 28-70/2.8L, 24-70/F4L, 24-105/F4L USM. It does have a nice build quality (albeit plastic) and the filterthread with 72mm is on the big size (for APS-C/DX) hereby...but also IS, which is good for ~4 stops, and good IQ, so what's not to like?
Great video, but I think u need to break down for what purpose the lenses is ideal for. If you use it for video it might be a great lens so dont understand why u say its a slow lens. I find a lot of the cheaper lenses are like dung for video, but ok performers for photo. It makes a big difference if u specify. Almost very few youtubers manage to get this information clear. Please help as I want to use it for video
I've owned 2 Canon 90D having sent the first back thinking It was faulty,Wrong the second was no different..It's a crap camera period....The 80D Is far superior IQ wise...90D has too many Mpix for an APSC sensor,Noise Is very evident anything over 400 ISO.....I have had the 15-85 for years and find the IQ Is way beyond the 18-135 IS USM....I went mirrorless with Fuji and Sony..I even went Nikon D500...But I missed that certain something the 80D gave me...Noise control,Colour,Useability...I just had to come back......Low light..I have primes for that..1.4,1.8.28...Canon 15-85mm EF-S should go down along with the Canon 40D as one of their success stories..
So? What's the big deal with that? If you wait a couple of months and get a much superior camera, why not do so? And just because a lens is out of production doesn't mean it's bad. A good copy of some cheap 40+ year old soviet lens would rival sharpness with that lens. While I do agree that this particular setup would be pretty bad, the idea to do this isn't
It's funny. Everybody's talking about the 15-85 having great image quality. But I've never seen an image from that lens that looked really sharp. In fact mostly the corners look abominable! It makes me wonder, does everybody just assume that at that price it has to be great? Or has anybody actually taken nice and sharp pictures with it? I've never tried the lens myself, and most likely I'm never going to. Partly because of the severe mismatch between price and maximum aperture. (Not to mention the absence of a lens hood). But first of all I'd want to see some really impressive images taken with the lens before I'd consider buying it.
Hi Matt Love your videos. I had a 15-85 Canon lens on my 30D, it was superb and sharp a razor, loved it, don't remember paying a fortune for though. But now no longer use Canon having switched over to Panasonic, a lot easier in my neck! Certainly don't regret switching, image quality just as good, if not better! On a somewhat contentious note I use to work in Pathology (now retired) and used a Nikon D100, hated it! Decided when I got a DSLR I would go for a Canon which I found to be far more intuitive to use. I know Nikon's are superb cameras, but just did not suit me!
Hi! Just bought one for 180 Euros, as good as new! And a 70D for 320 euros... So, for 500 euros, i just replaced my 550d with its 18 to 55 kit... Great lens, if you are pacient and find a good deal, like I just deed...🙂
Matt, Sad that you're not here with us anymore, great reviews like this are in short supply. If you can get a great deal on the 15-85 its a very nice lens. But it's still too expensive for what it is. For $800 you could get the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 + the Canon EFS 55-250 + the EFS 10-18. These 3 lenses are all you need for a good APSC kit for Canon EFS cameras. That was my kit for my 70D and my 7D MK2 until I went to RF mirror less.
@@MunroMcLaren yes, about 5 years ago. He was suffering from depression, but I don’t know much else. Peter Gregg made a video after his suicide, apparently they were friends.
Sorry to hear this . I’ve now found this lens for £90 and it sounds like a bargain. I was going to get the infamous 24-70 f2.8 then someone suggested this as I have the r7 mirrorless (with an adapter of course ) but I don’t know 🤷♀️ it’s either this, the sigma RF 18-50 or the ef 24-70
@@MosleydollMUA for that price its a great deal, but I would get the RF 18-50 f2.8 from sigma. It’s a constant aperture f2.8 which will let in much more light. The 15-85 is f3.5 to f5.6 at the long end which is 4x darker there. You don’t need IS because the R7 has IBIS. I use this lens (RF 18-50 f2.8)all the time. It’s also very light and surprisingly small. The 15-85 is big and heavy on the adapter.
game2572 profesional photographers may be need fullframe sensors, constant aperture and bodys with a lot of dedicate buttons and better iso and blablabla..... But for entusiastic like me, the most important is the sharp definition. In the other hand, people who waste a lot of money in a lot of things to end making bad photos.... but feeling the hype. The most important is feel the hype. And of course, for entusiastic and noobs, the hype is the luminosity. No luminosity no hype
If it was the 15-85mm usm and the 18-135 stm, hell i would've chose the stm one. It has more focal range and even though it's widest is 18mm, it wouldn't be quite a lot of a different compared to 15mm. And for the image quality the stm one is already sharp, probably the usm one is a bit sharper but for the price, hell no. And with the stm the autofocus is already great for both for photography and video, and it's also silent
Hi Matt, You've pretty much hit all the points of this lens, but in my opinion the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 isn't sharp at all. In fact, this lens is exceptionally soft, which is ridiculous when you consider that at its MSRP is not only overpriced, but it's also subpar in the performance department. This lens should be selling for $299-349 for it to be a good value to performance price.
For cheap $, this lens makes a nice, sharp, ultra wide to short telephoto landscape photo lens on my 80D. After some eBay hunting I paid $285 for a like new specimen w/filter. Well worth the $ for daytime street shooting, too. And yes, I also own the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, Canon 10-18mm, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 55-250mm IS STM, Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM and several big Tamrons. I dig them all..!! I'm after the Sigma 18-35m f/1.8 (spoiling myself), but they are selling used for big $'s on eBay. Some in great shape w/others that look wasted. For some unknown reason, the wasted and abused are pulling more $..!! LOL! Must be impatient amateurs at work.... I'm considering paying a little more & buying new..
canon 15-85mm used for $250-300 canon 70-300mm L used for $600 I dunno why you would even think about buying any of these new. Used are a fraction of the price and just as good.
I have a 15-85, and I bought it used, and it is awesome. I use it on my 70D.
I also have the 15-85 which I bought 2nd hand. I love it. Fast quiet focus. Quite a heavy lens compared to a kit lens. Really havent noticed a problem with the F3.5 to 5.6 aperture. If photographing indoors it tends to be around the 24mm mark which is F4 anyway. (15mm=3.5, 24mm=4.0, 35mm=4.5). The image stabilization is great, so that also helps.
I have a 15-85. Purchased new along with my 7D soon after it was introduced. After more than 11 years and close to 200,000 shutter count, both camera and lens still working great. And although the 15-85 is not rated as weatherproof, I have used it many times in pretty rough wet weather for extended periods, and I never encountered any issues with it, and there is no dust nor fungus inside the glass elements. It just keeps chugging along. So from my personal experience, it was well worth the price that I paid.
That being said, I also have a 5D II with a 24-105L lens. Comparing the 2 lenses side by side, I don't feel that the L lens is any better built than the 15-85. In fact I prefer the 15-85 in the way it handles, the zoom ring at the front compared to being at the rear for the L.
I bought it years ago as a replacement to my 17-85 and still work like new. It is sharper than the 17-85 and and the wide 15 mm is a plus
On my 70 D I didn’t find myself getting too much more value out of the 15 so I returned it it is sharper than 17-85 tho I thought long and hard with another was going to keep it or not then I remembered I never looked at my pictures with the 17-85 and said damn this isn’t sharp enough ya know
Recommend 1785mm or 1585mm?
I purchased the 15-85 after much debate because of the cost, but I have the 80D and require wide angled lenses when we travel to places like Jerusalem, Istanbul, Italy, etc. When you find yourself in the bizarre or narrow streets of old cities the wide angle lens is very helpful so I stay with the APC lenses because of the 1.6 crop factor. Although the 18-135 USM lens is a great lens from a telephoto and sharpness perspective, the zoom ring isn't very smooth and my videos were jerky as I zoomed in and out. I also found when using the 18-135 I rarely zoomed in beyond 85mm, so the telephoto length of 85mm was perfect for me. And the videos are nice and smooth now. VERY Happy with the purchase and recommend it.
I agree with many below comments, the 15-85mm is an awsome, smooth, quiet and sharp lens. Second hand, this is the one lens you should take on a trip.
Wow, interesting to discover that this lens now costs 2 time more than when I bought it. Long time ago I was researching 18-135mm and then I found the 15-85mm and was hesitating a lot on which one should I buy, as 15-85mm was more expensive. So after weighing up for some time, I ordered the 18-135mm from ebay, at very good price; it was originally part of a bundle, but the body was sold, so the lens was sold without a box. When the package arrived and I unwrapped it, to my amazement, there was 15-85mm in it. I never asked why and how, and the seller never asked the lens back.
Previously I was shooting with 18-55mm and I got to tell you, there is great difference in the image quality when you use 15-85mm. I believe the same goes for the rest of cheap Canon lenses, like 55-250mm. Significantly less amount of noise, much sharper, much brighter, also better colors and contrast, it's just another level. I have taken some of my best shots with it. There is some vignetting when shooting at both ends, 18mm or less and 80mm or more. Variable f is also a drawback, but it really depends on what are you going to use it for. Another drawback would be lens creep, you need to hold the zoom ring at the desired focal length if pointed down past certain angle. It is great walk-around and landscape lens imho, but I've used it for some portraits and it does good job. The lens is sturdy built, heavy, feels great to work with. AF is petty fast. It also contains UD glass, greatly reducing chromatic aberrations.
I guess I got lucky before, I wouldn't buy this lens for this price. But the build quality and the image quality is great.
Ok it’s expensive but depends what type of photography you do. I mainly use it for travels where I need various ranges at anytime and this lens has a fantastic range without needing to swap lenses all the time. There is a significant difference between 15 and 18 ( I also own the 18-135 but rarely use for that difference) especially when photographing indoors. There is a bit of distortion at 15 but when really an issue can be corrected in post processing. This lens is close to the full frame 24-105 which covers most needs during travel. I always carry another lens 10-22 or 70-300 but the hassle of switching lenses all the time makes me love the 15-85. It is sharp. So really depends what you usage is going to be. Yes 5.6 didn’t make it an ideal lens for portraits but in those circumstances you can swap with a portrait lens. It is a bit heavy with a Canon 80D and may be the reason for me switching in the future ( my neck after a whole day of travelling with it starts requesting for change)?” but cannot find many alternatives at Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic that have the same quality or just simply the same range.
I have the 90D and the Canon 15-85mm Len's and can confirm that this lens is awesome and works well with the 90D.
How’s the versatility? I’m looking for a good walk around lens.
@@MunroMcLaren t's permanently on my 90D. So yes it's excellent.
@@arcadianz50 Nice. And it’s good with wide and zoom? I found one for $200 on eBay. Hoping to get it for Christmas.
@@arcadianz50 Do you have the EF-S one?
@@MunroMcLaren Yes nice and wide and good zoom. Good one, that's a great price.
as someone who has this lens it is a lot sharper than the 17-50 and also has faster autofocus than the 17-50. this lens was my go-to lens for almost everything as it the closest APS-C lens to a 24-105. the variable f-stop is annoying sure however if you're going for sharpness and multi-use performance I would defiantly go with the 15-85mm.
its on my short list, I am selling the 3 kit lenses that have(dont ask how I ended up with 3) but my plan for my 80D is my 10-20mm, 15-85mm, a 60mm macro, or possibly the 65mm macro, and a the 70-300mm L with a 1.4x, I chose these because they are good performers, sharp, and relatively affordable used. I still need some primes, but I like zooms
Years ago I owned the canon 40d with the 15-85 but sold them both for the canon 70d and since bought the 10-18 IS STM and 18-135 IS STM. The 10-18 on a crop body is 16mm to 28.8mm whereas the 15 is 24mm so I am Much wider with no noise with the 10-18 and swap them out for the 18-135 and if I need longer I throw on my 55-250 IS STM and I too own the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS & 70-200 2.8 OS.
So yeah I agree that now a day's the canon 15-85 is Too outdated, was a Great lens ten years ago but not worth buying now.
Because this lens is unknown, the demand for it on the used lens market is low. You can pick on up for half price of the original. For me, as a walk around lens, the focal leg th is ideal when compared to the 18-135. I prefer the extra 3mm at the wide end than the extra reach on the wide end.
and it's much better optically. I'm disappointed with the 18-135
I’m surprised about the price mentioned ($850?). I paid $610 for a new lens in 2017 (6 yrs ago) and it’s still my favorite travel lens on a 80d.
Pair a 10-18 and 18-135 both IS both STM you get silent fast focussing from 10 to 135. Add some fast primes (50 and a 24) and a 70-200 f/4 and you got a really good versatile set for travel, wideangle, portraits, videography, street probably $1000 or so :D
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use this lens. I think if someone is to drop that much money on one lens it's likely going to be the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8, or even a used 24-105/24-70 f4 L lens. Any of those four would suit someone better for the price. And the last two would be able to serve them on full frame as well if the end up on that route
I can understand if your view of the price is for a brand-new price. I haven't checked again in my local store about how much it is brand new, but I believe it wouldn't change as far as 4 years ago, the video's year.
I come from the future to tell that here in Indonesia, the 15-85mm is even cheaper if bought secondhand, an actual third of the 799 usd, thanks to a lot of others migrating to mirrorless lens and camera setups. A used 15-85mm + used 7D mark 1 is by far the best value for money for a high quality DSLR general setup, and can still perform strongly beside the new ones in terms of photography uses.
It's too expensive brand new, that's why I got mine for half the price. I think it all boils down to what you generally shoot. The extra 2mm on the wide end is more useful for me as I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture. I've had an 18-200mm but I rarely use the 200mm so I went to upgrade with this lens. And if you're like me shooting mostly landscapes and walking around, you wouldn't need the extra stop of aperture. This is a great walk around lens in my opinion. Great range with great image quality. Just don't buy it brand new. 😜
Mark Anthony Luz Agreed, I got mine for around 300 gbp and feel that's a far more realistic price. It's quite a heavy lens though but nicely put together.
For a sharp APS-C lens around the $800 mark I would go with the sigma 18 to 35 f1.8. It doesn’t have the focal range but it is just about if not the sharpest APS-C out there and fast. Especially if you plan on sticking with crop sensors cameras.
I definitely agree with you on that! The 15-85mm is subpar and most definitely not worth the $799 asking price.
That's like saying:"Hey, I heard you like apples, here is my $800 banana". ;-)
It is a bit pricey but I grabbed one use and I'm happy I did. I have the 18-135 Nano USM and it's night and day difference. The 15-85 is one stop faster in reality because I'm not happy with the 18-135 unless it is stopped down to f/8 but the 15-85 performs nicely wide open. For video get the 18-135 and for stills the 15-85 is much better.
The Canon 15-85 and the Sigma 17-50 are the same price used at the moment, what would you go for ???
The 15-85 is far better than 18-135. Its as good as 17-55 but gives u wider view and further zoom, at about same price. Clear winner. 18-135,. 18-55 and 17-85 are about the same quality. 55-250 is great quality/price zoom. 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 do the trick of fast, cheap and great quality lenses. I would love to have the 17-55 but 15-85 is better built and more reliable general purpose lens.
I have a 17-85mm lens. In fact, I have two of them because the auto focus on the first one gave up the ghost. Be warned! That is a known weakness of the 17-85mm lens: after a while the autofocus quits working. I also recently acquired the much-better 15-85mm lens. In fact, I got both it and a Canon 7D body for a grand total price of $380 (used), which I think is a pretty good deal.
The Canon 15-85mm IS Lens is a decent lens... It has some creeping issues and mine would sometimes 'stick' when trying to zoom and I had to give it a wiggle to be able to Zoom properly.. I'm sure I read that this is a common issue!? I would suggest to get the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8.
The lense is slow, so it's not really useful at 85mm for portraits, the range is good. IS is good to have, etc
The only use for this lense I see is when your trying to make photos for documentation. The range helps there a lot, being slow is not optimal, but at least there is IS. Still, if you are going for 5.6 or even F7 on your shots, because you want a decent wide depth of field and not focus on something specifically ... it sounds like a lense with gives you a lot of versatility in the range.
With that said, it still sounds like a niche product.
Why not the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8? You can get it refurbished for about $800. It even has image stabilization.
Recommend 1585mm or 1785mm?
I am glad I found this video. I didn't know the 10-18mm existed
I have the 80d so is this a great lens so is this a great lens
If one is going to spend more to supplant one of Canon's quite good EF-S 18-135mm f3.5~f5.6 zooms, a17-50 or 17-55 f2.8 zoom is a better choice for an APS-C kit. My grab-and-go kit, initially with an EOS 760D, and now with an 80D, includes an EF-S 10-18 f4.5~5.6 IS STM, an EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, and an EF-S 55-250 f/4~5.6 IS STM.
Reviews of the newish Sigma 18-35 f1.8 suggest that it may be a better choice for the steady handed than the 12 year old design of the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. Canon's new EF 70-300mm f/4~5.6 IS II USM is reputed to at least equal the quality of the EF-S 55-250mm f/4~5.6 IS STM while providing more reach, though at the cost of a higher price and slightly greater weight.
This iscwhy Christopher Frost Photography
is the only review channel that I watch
it's 300-330€ used on ebay in Germany. therefore great value! optically probably the best EF-S lens. it's worth it, and I really missed it while I was briefly with Nikon. But I'm back to 80D, looking forward to 90D, and the first thing I did was to buy the 15-85mm again. the other lenses I want/need are the Sigma 8-16mm, Tokina 11-20mm f2.8, EF 50mm F1.4, EF 100mm f2.8 macro, and the EF 70-300.
I am confused about Jim's requirements on several points. He does not mention what his current APS-C camera is, what he mainly shoots or will shoot, wants to upgrade to vaporware 90D and then to vaporware 7D III. Regarding image quality, many pro reviews mention 80D having better image quality than 7D II - 7D II excels only in sports and nature photography.
So not knowing his requirements, difficult to suggest anything.
Agreed with you Matt on your assessment.
I sort of fancy this lens for travel...
I think there is good reason to go used market for some kit, this lens is around £200 here (so probably about $200 equivalent) used with a 24-month exchange like for like/current market value warranty, the 18-135 STM about the same and the 18-135 nano USM about £270, at this level I guess desired focal range is the decider, personally I seldom find 18mm on the wide end to be not wide enough, but 85mm on the long end may be a little short...
For me these are decent travel lenses, at home I mostly use primes, they just become a little impractical while traveling and keeping kit to a minimum.
Spot on evaluation Matt.
I would also highly recommend the 70-300 IS II over the 55-250. The AF speed build quality and sharpness are in another league compared to the 55-250. When tracking fast moving subjects that AF speed is noticeable for target acquisition. It doesn't sound like Jim is going FF but he has the option (and they have higher resale values as well).
Sharpnesswise there's a huge difference between the original 55-250 and the newer and much better 55-250 STM. I'm not sure the 70-300 IS II is sharper than that one, and it certainly couldn't have faster AF. But I am sure it's bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive.
What is this “7D Mark III” you speak of?
never materialized, some people think it’s the M6 mk ii in disguise
Can you use this EF-S on an EF Camera for example 6D Mark 2 by adapter or some modification? Thanks,
Hello Matt, just want to ask, is this worth it for 300$?
I think it replaced the 17-85 at a time when everybody was looking for 2.8 and 1.8 lenses. I think the 17-55 2.8 is cheaper and its amazing. I personally use the sigma 17-50 and at the price it's amazing.
Is the auto focus loud? I feel this might be a great vlog lens, but I cannot find hardly any videos regarding vlogs and the AF noise
RowlWool Nope it's not loud. Very silent. May be as silent as the new 50mm f1.8 STM if you have that lens.
No, it is usm so its veeery silent. Way more than 50mm 1.8 ;)
I have a 17 to 85 that I use on my 70D The 15-85 is a great but at three times the price of the one I have with only moderately better performance I can’t put it on the budget list either not when the 17-85 can be had for 80 like I paid for it
Hi bruh , what's your opinion about 17-85 efs ?
This was my first lens purchase (back in 2011 according to Amazon) and I don't even remember what made me buy it. Just wanted to add, it has been a very durable lens. It's travelled with me for years, hiking, climbing, exploring deserts and cities, and is the oldest surviving lens in my collection. Probably my favorite for when I want to shoot the sun. I avoid using it when shooting raw though because I'm too picky and lazy to deal with its distortions.
Rx100 Vs Dslr which is better for bokeh means blur backgrounds rx100 has 1.8 aparture but Dslr has 3.6 aparture which is better for portrait bigger sensor 3.6 aparture or small sensor and 1.8 aparture which is better for blur background rx100 is cheaper than d3400 dual kit which is better please tell me sir kindly takey questions as your next video discussion please
Wtf are you saying
It's underrated, because it was (since 2009) being too expensive, and 2nd, it's being "only" F3.5-5.6, but it's the "one lens to shoot it all" for Canon APS-C. I've found 699 EUR always being expensive, but so is the Nikon 16-85, a lens which is way similar, also with IS (here: VR) and 24-120mm in FF terms, the Canon 15-85 USM is 24-136mm in FF terms. I've searched a hell long time for a decent zoom for my 40D, 50D's...and know all the reviews back into its heyday. Finally pulled the trigger, 150 bucks...is alright, 2nd hand. Still have the mentioned 16-85 VR on my D7000, also have the D700, and 5D, 5D II...and the 28-70/2.8L, 24-70/F4L, 24-105/F4L USM. It does have a nice build quality (albeit plastic) and the filterthread with 72mm is on the big size (for APS-C/DX) hereby...but also IS, which is good for ~4 stops, and good IQ, so what's not to like?
If someone offered you the lens in excellent condition for $200 bucks, would you buy it?
I did! It’s a good travel lens, street photography in good light.
Great video, but I think u need to break down for what purpose the lenses is ideal for. If you use it for video it might be a great lens so dont understand why u say its a slow lens. I find a lot of the cheaper lenses are like dung for video, but ok performers for photo. It makes a big difference if u specify. Almost very few youtubers manage to get this information clear. Please help as I want to use it for video
Yeah absolutely agree with this assesment - 95% of the performance (say) at 30% of the price in amateur hands is a no brainer.
I've owned 2 Canon 90D having sent the first back thinking It was faulty,Wrong the second was no different..It's a crap camera period....The 80D Is far superior IQ wise...90D has too many Mpix for an APSC sensor,Noise Is very evident anything over 400 ISO.....I have had the 15-85 for years and find the IQ Is way beyond the 18-135 IS USM....I went mirrorless with Fuji and Sony..I even went Nikon D500...But I missed that certain something the 80D gave me...Noise control,Colour,Useability...I just had to come back......Low light..I have primes for that..1.4,1.8.28...Canon 15-85mm EF-S should go down along with the Canon 40D as one of their success stories..
i think the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is a better option
Just picked up a Canon EF-S 17-85mm for $80 bucks in excellent shape 😳
Lol, Planning to buy Cameras that aren't even announced yet and Lens that is Out of Production like 4-5 years ago...
So? What's the big deal with that? If you wait a couple of months and get a much superior camera, why not do so? And just because a lens is out of production doesn't mean it's bad. A good copy of some cheap 40+ year old soviet lens would rival sharpness with that lens. While I do agree that this particular setup would be pretty bad, the idea to do this isn't
Good points indeed re the Canon 15-85 !
Buy a used one. Almost all APS-C lenses values sink like a lead balloon.
Very true. The 17-55mm f2.8's nose dive after being bought new. Makes little sense to buy new.
I picked up my excellent 15-85mm for £200 second hand from a dealer and brand new it was £600.
@@sexysilversurfer I bought used. less $100. worth it, still excellent
It's funny. Everybody's talking about the 15-85 having great image quality. But I've never seen an image from that lens that looked really sharp. In fact mostly the corners look abominable! It makes me wonder, does everybody just assume that at that price it has to be great? Or has anybody actually taken nice and sharp pictures with it? I've never tried the lens myself, and most likely I'm never going to. Partly because of the severe mismatch between price and maximum aperture. (Not to mention the absence of a lens hood). But first of all I'd want to see some really impressive images taken with the lens before I'd consider buying it.
I use it all the time and get great sharp images, maybe you just don't know how to use a camera...Dummy!
@@-WhizzBang- then let’s see some of your great sharp images... wise guy!
Hi Matt
Love your videos. I had a 15-85 Canon lens on my 30D, it was superb and sharp a razor, loved it, don't remember paying a fortune for though. But now no longer use Canon having switched over to Panasonic, a lot easier in my neck!
Certainly don't regret switching, image quality just as good, if not better!
On a somewhat contentious note I use to work in Pathology (now retired) and used a Nikon D100, hated it! Decided when I got a DSLR I would go for a Canon which I found to be far more intuitive to use. I know Nikon's are superb cameras, but just did not suit me!
Right, And the Panasonic Leica DG Vario Elmarit 12mm-60mm f2.8-4.0ASPH gives a better image. With a 2X crop factor of a micro 4/3, it is a 24mm-120mm
Hi! Just bought one for 180 Euros, as good as new! And a 70D for 320 euros... So, for 500 euros, i just replaced my 550d with its 18 to 55 kit... Great lens, if you are pacient and find a good deal, like I just deed...🙂
Still waiting on that 90D? ;D
I own the 18-135 USM, not STM, lens that was announced with and for the 80D. It focusses faster, more quietly than the STM version.
Yeah, but not exactly what I would call inexpensive.
I found it on eBay for $199. There’s so many for them for less than $350.
Matt, Sad that you're not here with us anymore, great reviews like this are in short supply.
If you can get a great deal on the 15-85 its a very nice lens. But it's still too expensive for what it is.
For $800 you could get the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 + the Canon EFS 55-250 + the EFS 10-18. These 3 lenses are all you need for a good APSC kit for Canon EFS cameras. That was my kit for my 70D and my 7D MK2 until I went to RF mirror less.
Did he pass?
@@MunroMcLaren yes, about 5 years ago. He was suffering from depression, but I don’t know much else. Peter Gregg made a video after his suicide, apparently they were friends.
Sorry to hear this .
I’ve now found this lens for £90 and it sounds like a bargain. I was going to get the infamous 24-70 f2.8 then someone suggested this as I have the r7 mirrorless (with an adapter of course ) but I don’t know 🤷♀️ it’s either this, the sigma RF 18-50 or the ef 24-70
@@MosleydollMUA for that price its a great deal, but I would get the RF 18-50 f2.8 from sigma. It’s a constant aperture f2.8 which will let in much more light. The 15-85 is f3.5 to f5.6 at the long end which is 4x darker there. You don’t need IS because the R7 has IBIS. I use this lens (RF 18-50 f2.8)all the time. It’s also very light and surprisingly small. The 15-85 is big and heavy on the adapter.
Mint explanation Matt!
Because most serious photographers want a constant aperture lens. Not being a camera snob just stating facts
game2572 profesional photographers may be need fullframe sensors, constant aperture and bodys with a lot of dedicate buttons and better iso and blablabla.....
But for entusiastic like me, the most important is the sharp definition.
In the other hand, people who waste a lot of money in a lot of things to end making bad photos.... but feeling the hype.
The most important is feel the hype. And of course, for entusiastic and noobs, the hype is the luminosity.
No luminosity no hype
You make it very complicated... is it a good used option or not... who buys it new nowadays?
R.I.P.
I think you’re right, i threw my 15-85mm out
Sigma 17-70MM
Agreed fully...
why I think your video is black and white!! haha you reallllly love everything in BLACK color ...
If it was the 15-85mm usm and the 18-135 stm, hell i would've chose the stm one. It has more focal range and even though it's widest is 18mm, it wouldn't be quite a lot of a different compared to 15mm.
And for the image quality the stm one is already sharp, probably the usm one is a bit sharper but for the price, hell no.
And with the stm the autofocus is already great for both for photography and video, and it's also silent
Yes if you know anybody want to buy one for about $50
Lol i love this lens and i almost exclusively use this lens both for video and photo.
This lens is literally $930 in my country (brand new).
2012 this lens only $300-$400. why this more expensive today?
less than $300 used on ebay
I bought used. less $100. worth it, still excellent
Hi Matt,
You've pretty much hit all the points of this lens, but in my opinion the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 isn't sharp at all. In fact, this lens is exceptionally soft, which is ridiculous when you consider that at its MSRP is not only overpriced, but it's also subpar in the performance department. This lens should be selling for $299-349 for it to be a good value to performance price.
You must have a bad one..mine is definitely sharp and puts my 18-135 to shame
For cheap $, this lens makes a nice, sharp, ultra wide to short telephoto landscape photo lens on my 80D. After some eBay hunting I paid $285 for a like new specimen w/filter.
Well worth the $ for daytime street shooting, too.
And yes, I also own the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, Canon 10-18mm, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 55-250mm IS STM, Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM and several big Tamrons. I dig them all..!!
I'm after the Sigma 18-35m f/1.8 (spoiling myself), but they are selling used for big $'s on eBay. Some in great shape w/others that look wasted.
For some unknown reason, the wasted and abused are pulling more $..!! LOL! Must be impatient amateurs at work....
I'm considering paying a little more & buying new..
canon 15-85mm used for $250-300
canon 70-300mm L used for $600
I dunno why you would even think about buying any of these new. Used are a fraction of the price and just as good.
@Ryan Galzote I dont know what that means....
canon 15 - 85mm to expensive? so buy cheaper.