# On a crop sensor...EF17-40L or EFS15-85?



## Patrick (Aug 5, 2013)

Will also be using the 50mm 1.8 Mk1 and the 70-200 F4. Little price difference but which would you choose and why?
Thanks
Patrick


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2013)

15-85mm - sharper, more useful range, has IS. Only reason to get the 17-40L is if you're also going to use it on a FF body now (not 'I'm getting a FF someday...'), or if you have a 7D and absolutely require a weather-sealed general purpose zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2013)

The 15-85 is a gem of a lens. It's sharp, has good IS and a very useful range.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 15-85mm - sharper, more useful range, has IS. Only reason to get the 17-40L is if you're also going to use it on a FF body now (not 'I'm getting a FF someday...'), or if you have a 7D and absolutely require a weather-sealed general purpose zoom.





AlanF said:


> The 15-85 is a gem of a lens. It's sharp, has good IS and a very useful range.



Agreed! The 15-85 is a terrific lens, my favorite for crop bodies. About the only advantage the 17-40 would have over the 15-85 is a constant f/4.0 aperture, but for outdoor/landscape uses that isn't very significant. 

If you need a wider ( f/2.8 ) aperture for indoor/low-light situations, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is another "L" quality EF-S lens that is excellent. Its several hundred dollars more than the 15-85, but worth it if you need a 2.8 zoom.


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 6, 2013)

I've just recently purchased the 17-40 mm L. I love it.
On my 550D with the centre cross-type AF point it focuses extremely fast. 
Depends what you need but I have the 28-135 when I need more zoom so didn't feel the need to buy the 15-85mm.
I have found that I don't really need anything more than the 17-40mm for my purposes and it is rarely off my camera nowadays.
Have you considered the Sigma 15-35mm f/1.8? Rave reviews.


----------



## michi (Aug 6, 2013)

15-85 for crop without question. Sharp lens, IS, can't beat it.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The 15-85 is a gem of a lens. It's sharp, has good IS and a very useful range.



+1

Awfully good choice as your "walk around" lens. Unless you have FF, look no further. I'd consider the 17-55 if you don't need the reach, but it is heavier and, I think, a bit larger.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2013)

Another vote for the 15-85. It was a great combo with the 7D.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 6, 2013)

Canon 15-85mm is my 'go-to' general purpose; aka 'walk-around' lens.

17-40mm - decent IQ, but not as good as 15-85mm. The focal length is really limiting here. I would find the 17-40mm only useful as a 'budget / lighter version' to the 16-35mm f/2.8 for FF.

I have used and owned various other 'walk around' lenses - but the 15-85mm is the best package imho for APS-C. As has already been written: IS (effective for 4 stops), great USM focus, totally useable wide open at both wide and tele ends. I love the 15mm (24mm in FF equivalent) for landscapes and the 85mm for casual portraits. It's contrasty, sharp and has 'decent' bokeh for a slow zoom (when used in some situations).

28-135mm (I had a decent copy) - IQ wide open not as good as the 15-85mm, handling - and particularly zoom range didn't work as well as 15-85mm.

18-55 vII. Rrecent IS and STM versions have improved IQ (older versions were decent stopped down a bit) But still not nearly as good as the 15-85mm due to USM and focal range

If one didn't want to get the 15-85mm for whatever reason (why, though?) you could probably get the relatively new 18-135mm STM (good reviews, price reducing now, and will come down further)

17-55mm f/2.8 - when I like 'fast' - I like f/1.4 - f/2. So I find the f/2.8 sits in the 'middle ground' - certainly useful in some low light situations over the 15-85mm, but I'd still go for a prime. Again focal length as a 'walk around' limiting.

Advice: get the 15-85mm. You won't regret it. 

Paul


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...or if you have a 7D and absolutely require a weather-sealed general purpose zoom.



I tried talking myself into trading my 17-40L for a 15-85. But I won't do it because of those few occasions when the 17-40L lets me shoot in conditions that would clobber the 15-85.

Absent that...the 15-85 is the better choice. It's not that the 17-40 is bad, it's quite good on crop, just the 15-85 makes more sense.


----------



## luckydude (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 15-85mm - sharper, more useful range, has IS. Only reason to get the 17-40L is if you're also going to use it on a FF body now (not 'I'm getting a FF someday...'), or if you have a 7D and absolutely require a weather-sealed general purpose zoom.



I'm a noob here but I agree 100%. The 15-85 is a sleeper lens, if you have a crop factor body you want this lens. I've got the 10-22 and I rarely use it after getting this lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 15-85mm - sharper, more useful range, has IS. Only reason to get the 17-40L is if you're also going to use it on a FF body now (not 'I'm getting a FF someday...'), or if you have a 7D and absolutely require a weather-sealed general purpose zoom.



+1. In fact, for those rare occasions where I need a general zoom for my 7d, but no weather sealing is required, I use a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2,8 because of the extra stop and extended range. This little Tamron is optically excellent and the best value you can get in an APS-C zoom, imho. 

In my experience the 17-40L has never yet found its way to my 7D because I prefer it as a 'wide' on the 5D2. And if I need weather sealing, well then the 24-105L on the 5D2 is my go-to set.


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 6, 2013)

I would also go for the 15-85; the 17-40 just does not make sense on a APS-C camera, you pay too much, you carry arround too much weight, but you gain nothing.

IQ of the 15-85 is very good accros the (very usefull) range.

I personaly went for the newset version of the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. The only drawback is the smaller zoom range, but beside from that, it has only advantages (faster, smaller, lighter, cheaper and a little bit better IQ). It suited my profile better than the 15-85, but the 15-85 was second place on my personal list for a walk around lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 6, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I would also go for the 15-85; the 17-40 just does not make sense on a APS-C camera, you pay too much, you carry arround too much weight, but you gain nothing.



The 17-40L isn't that heavy, is rather cheap these days esp. with a Canon rebate, and you gain weather sealing which might be very important depending on where you shoot. Having said that, I'd go for the 15-85 hands down if an upgrade/dual use to/with ff isn't planned.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 6, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I would also go for the 15-85; the 17-40 just does not make sense on a APS-C camera, you pay too much, you carry arround too much weight, but you gain nothing.
> 
> IQ of the 15-85 is very good accros the (very usefull) range.



As Marsu says, the 17-40 isn't much more than the 15-85 in cost and is actually lighter, so not sure what you mean by 'you carry around too much weight' unless you mean by using the 17-40 as a walkaround means you need to use it in combination with another lens due to it's limited range. I got the 17-40 as a weathersealed lens to complement my 7D. Used on APS-C it will also have less vignetting, possibly less distortion at a given focal length than the 15-85 and a constant aperture. And you could use it on a FF camera if you chose to upgrade.

Having said all that, I concede that the 15-85 is a very nice range for the crop sensor, and a travel light one lens solution. The IS is also something the 17-40 lacks. I've never used it myself so I can't say how much sharper than the 17-40 it is, but one thing to consider is that it is a lens that *MAY* suffer from centering defects to a greater degree than normal, I'm fairly sure there have been several threads on this forum complaining of corner softness and uneven vignetting, and Photozone also mentioned decentering in their review (not sure how many copies they would have tested). Of course, I'm sure you can get bad copies of almost any lens.


----------



## GaryJ (Aug 6, 2013)

Having good fun with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on my7D,lovely walkaround lens, sharp as all getout


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 6, 2013)

GaryJ said:


> Having good fun with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on my7D,lovely walkaround lens, sharp as all getout



Could be one to consider- I'm looking forward to seeing some reviews from Photozone etc for this lens, could be a real winner!


----------



## SpareImp (Aug 6, 2013)

The constant f/4 on the 17-40mm isn’t really an advantage, considering it only goes to 40mm. The 15-85mm is actually faster at the wide end, and goes all the way to 85mm (f/5.6). And the 17-40mm isn’t very sharp wide open. Not the one that I used to own. Had to stop it down to about f/8, and it still was far worse than my Tamron 28-75mm at the corresponding focal lengths. It’s its FF-compatible ultra wide angle abilities you would purchase it for. I’ve owned both, and the 15-85mm is the better choice.


----------



## alexturton (Aug 6, 2013)

I used the 17-40L on 7d for a few years as a general walk around. the IQ on crop is very good.

It is very small and light, the AF is super quick and accurate and its close focussing on crop yields some decent enough macro shots.

However 40mm f4 is not fast or long enough to create any decent subject isolation. I wasn't really using the lens for landscape purposes so I ended up selling it and got the 17-55 2.8 IS instead.

I cannot comment on the 15-85 but I can say that the 17-55 is a lovely lens. lightning AF, extremely accurate. Very sharp @ 2.8 (except for closest focusing distance where some residual aberations creep in, but @ the closest focussing distance you need to stop down anyway to create usable depth of field).

The 17-55 is a dust hoover and after a year of relatively light use my copy is full of dust. but I've never noticed any degregation in IQ.

I would say if your photographic focus is at the 17mm end, and you don't mind using a tripod in lower light, go for the 17-40m as the build quality is better, its weather sealed (if you add a filter) and can serve as a full frame lens should you upgrade.

Otherwise, if you want it for the longer end. I would get the 15-85 or the 17-55 f2.8


----------



## Promature (Aug 6, 2013)

Why not consider the 24-105mm? It doesn't cost all that much more (check Amazon used or LensAuthority), has constant f4 aperature, is L glass, has IS, and has longer reach. I used to have a 17-55 f2.8 on my T2i, but I found myself not using the wide end and wanted more reach. The 24-105 got me there.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 6, 2013)

Promature said:


> Why not consider the 24-105mm? It doesn't cost all that much more (check Amazon used or LensAuthority), has constant f4 aperature, is L glass, has IS, and has longer reach. I used to have a 17-55 f2.8 on my T2i, but I found myself not using the wide end and wanted more reach. The 24-105 got me there.



Must have to do with the sorts of things you photograph. A third of the photographs I've taken on a crop body are at a shorter focal length than 24mm. If you're considering the 24-105, I'd suggest pairing it with an EF-S 10-22.

For a general walking-around lens, I'd definitely pick the 15-85 on a crop body without hesitation.


----------



## Patrick (Aug 6, 2013)

That is the closest to a consesus I've ever seen on the Canon Runors forum! Thanks to all who gave me their input, the 15-85 will be it. The 50 f1.8 will be faster in low light and the 70-200 will have the required reach for my needs.
Thanks again.
Patrick


----------

