# Advice before buying used 15-85 EF-S



## sootzzs (Jul 25, 2012)

Hi! 

I'm new to DSLR (about 4 months), using 60D, 18-55IS, 50 1.8, 55-250IS. When I bought the camera paying 700-800$ for lens seemed crazy for me (yep, I was young and innocent  ) so I preferred to start with the much cheaper 18-55 and "upgrade in the future". 
Well, the future arrived faster than I thought and I feel 18-55 is not enough any more and I'm stuck with it. I'm thinking to upgrade to 15-85 ( I don't have money for L glass). I've got an offer of 625$ for 1.5 years used 15-85 with original hood, supposed to be in like new shape. New one costs here 790$ w/o the hood and has 1 year warranty. 

I'm not fond of buying used things in general but I understand that with lenses it not always a bad idea. I would like to ask an advice from people that have this lens: 
Do you think 165$ worth the 1.5 year use (it's from an amateur) or should I buy a new one? How does 15-85 cope with time and use? Or maybe I should buy a new 17-85 for 620$????

As always, Thank You for your help and advice!!!


----------



## noncho (Jul 25, 2012)

I have 60D and 15-85IS, it's good lense with great range. 
I got it year and a half ago for about 600$ brand new separated from a kit. Mine is still in like new condition, it's good build. I would try to drop this price to 600$.

DON'T even think about old 17-85IS, it's not better even than a kit 18-55IS.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm not familiar with your market (US is bit cheaper), but a 20% price difference for a used lens sounds reasonable as long as it is fully functional and in very good condition. I'd opt for a used 15-85 rather than a new 17-85.

You want to make sure that it physical condition is acceptable (esp front and rear elements for wear), that it focuses accurately wide open and stopped down, that it's IS works and that the pictures it takes are sharp enough and do not show any decentering. If it takes good pictures and operates normally, then go for it!


----------



## Mendolera (Jul 25, 2012)

Yeah agreed stick with 15-85 over the 17-85. Even being used its a much better lens....

If your budget allows for it even keep your eye open for the 24-105L. I got mine for 780 in like new condition. Since its been a 5D kit for many years your can def snag a good deal. Only downside its not as wide as the 15-85 on your 60D and still might be a couple hundred more.

Ive seen the 17-85 go for $250 US on ebay all the time so its bad for resale. Though it would be an upgrade over the 18-55 IMO.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 25, 2012)

sootzzs said:


> Hi!
> 
> I'm new to DSLR (about 4 months), using 60D, 18-55IS, 50 1.8, 55-250IS. When I bought the camera paying 700-800$ for lens seemed crazy for me (yep, I was young and innocent  ) so I preferred to start with the much cheaper 18-55 and "upgrade in the future".
> Well, the future arrived faster than I thought and I feel 18-55 is not enough any more and I'm stuck with it. I'm thinking to upgrade to 15-85 ( I don't have money for L glass). I've got an offer of 625$ for 1.5 years used 15-85 with original hood, supposed to be in like new shape. New one costs here 790$ w/o the hood and has 1 year warranty.
> ...



I believe you should just save that extra little $$$ and get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Its well worth it and wont disappoint. You lose little $$$ over depreciation with good glass.

Patience is a virtue, and Impatience is an expensive commodity.


----------



## sootzzs (Jul 25, 2012)

> I believe you should just save that extra little $$$ and get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Its well worth it and wont disappoint. You lose little $$$ over depreciation with good glass.
> 
> Patience is a virtue, and Impatience is an expensive commodity.




Thank you for you advice guys. I know that 17-55 is THE EF-S lens, but I prefer the range of 15-85. It also costs much less. 

My main concern is that the USM motor (which I think is the most vulnerable part of the lens) of 1.5 year used lens, well, could stop working 1.5 years earlier than of a new one and will cost me at least (if not more) the same 165$ to fix it. Can anyone predict the average lifetime of it? How durable are these things?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2012)

sootzzs said:


> > I believe you should just save that extra little $$$ and get the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Its well worth it and wont disappoint. You lose little $$$ over depreciation with good glass.
> >
> > Patience is a virtue, and Impatience is an expensive commodity.
> 
> ...


 
The USM Motor is very reliable, but IS more delicate and less reliable. In the USA, it does not include a hood.
Roger Cicila owns Lens Rentals.com and comments on reliability and quality of the lenses. Rental lenses have a very tough life, and if they can't take rough handling, he mentions it.
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-ef-s-15-85mm-f3.5-5.6-is-usm#


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 25, 2012)

I hear really good things about the 15-85... more so than the 17-85. I don't mind the idea of buying used lenses because they don't depreciate that much unless you abuse them. 

If you know the guy who is selling you the lens and he treats his lens remarkably well, then I say go nuts and buy it. But if it is a guy on craigslist who you don't know, then I would have a few more reservations. If the seller will let you look at the lens and go over it with a fine toothed comb to include putting it on your body and testing at all apertures and both extremes... 

Alternatively, Amazon has a used one in like new condition for 599 plus 8 bucks shipping. I'm uncertain of their return policy, but you at least have Amazon to complain to if it isn't as described. 

The great thing about buying used is that you can inevitably sell the lens for what you paid and not lose anything. In certain instances you might get a great deal and then sell it for more than you paid.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 25, 2012)

Auto focus (USM motor) has been more of an issue with the 50mm f/1.4. I haven't heard anything going out with the 15-85mm. The 17-55mm is a nice lens, but I don't like it's focal range and it also sucks in dust like crazy thought it doesn't affect image quality.


----------



## Jotho (Jul 25, 2012)

I owned a 15-85 for a year before I sold it as I move to L lenses. I was very happy with everything about it (although I'm not a pro and don't have extensive experience), but I can say that I was happy with everything about it from build quality to performance. It seems robust enough to last through tough conditions and not wear down to easily. I say go for it.


----------



## sootzzs (Jul 26, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> You only started for 4 months and you are now buying new lenses... that's quick to get on the gear head wagon LOL
> 
> IMO the 15-85 is too slow, f4~f5.6, you basically lives with a flash unless in sunny outdoor.
> 
> Go get a 1.4 normal prime! When I started with 50D+18-200, the first lens I bought was a Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC. It's pretty darn good. I didn't know what was corner sharpness and literal CA by that time so those flaws didn't bother me at all (Now you know! Ha!). It gives you a ~50mm normal angle on 1.6x Crop which is very good starting point.



Yep . I took a lot of pictures in these 4 months. Experience is the best teacher in the world as it turned out.
I think that I'll stick with my 50 1.8II for fast prime for now. 
I stumbled on "Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS macro" while doing some research. The range is not of 15-85 but it seems considerably faster at 2.8-4, and provides some "semi macro" (1:2.7) which I like a lot. It also cost 450$ new!

Anyone have had any experience with it? How would you rate it next to canon 15-85? New Sigma or used Canon? hmmmm..........


----------



## Flashc (Jul 26, 2012)

sootzzs said:


> Hi!
> 
> I'm new to DSLR (about 4 months), using 60D, 18-55IS, 50 1.8, 55-250IS. When I bought the camera paying 700-800$ for lens seemed crazy for me (yep, I was young and innocent  ) so I preferred to start with the much cheaper 18-55 and "upgrade in the future".
> Well, the future arrived faster than I thought and I feel 18-55 is not enough any more and I'm stuck with it. I'm thinking to upgrade to 15-85 ( I don't have money for L glass). I've got an offer of 625$ for 1.5 years used 15-85 with original hood, supposed to be in like new shape. New one costs here 790$ w/o the hood and has 1 year warranty.
> ...



Hi...
I've had my 7D and 15-85mm *F3.5*-5.6 for over 2 years and the 15-85mm EF-S f3.5-5.6 lens I use as an everyday lens. Why? Because of the non-cropped angles of view available with this lens and the range of the zoom - equal to a 24-136 on a full frame if such a EF lens existed. It also does a bit of macro, had a pretty good review on DPReview and who I think who said if there was a L series for APS-C Cameras, this lens should have that designation.

USM motor, IS, full time internal focusing. circular aperture for beautiful background blur (bokeh), ultra low dispersion (UD) lenses and aspherical lens elements, minimum focus .35m (macro). It may not have as good a quality glass as an "L" lens but is an affordable Canon brand all rounder.

I also have several EF L lenses but with the 15-85mm, I don't have to do a lens change from my 70-200 L to 24-105 L because I can't get back far enough because of the reduced EF angles of view at wide angle. The EF 24 gives an angle of view on the 60D equivalent to 38mm. Try shooting a rodeo when the action moves to the fence next to you and you need to go wider than 38mm.

You have an EF f1.8. So do I but only use it to do low light to get the shutter speeds up at low iso.

How often are you going need to shoot wide open at f1.4. I aim to shoot at f8 or whatever is best for the lens I use and the subject.

It works for me.


----------



## RC (Jul 26, 2012)

Owned this lens for a while, excellent IQ and build for non L. Excellent walk-around FL (24-136 FF). Not a fast lens at all, moving just a few mm off 15mm and you are at f/4. 

Sold it due to excessive distortion at 15mm and I wanted a faster constant aperture WS lens so I got a 16-35II.

Personally I would only buy used it you know the buyer, you use Craig's List, Canon refurb store, or some place where you have some recourse if things go bad.

15-85 is a great lens choice. Have you thought about selling your 18-55 and 55-250 and put money that towards a new 15-85 or even 17-55? (Not sure how much those two lens would bring in but might be worth checking into.) Less excellent glass is way better than more OK glass.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2012)

I've had this lens for almost three years. It is my standard, walk around lens on a 7D. Robust build, very sharp. There is no real comparison between this lens and the cheap kit lenses. The extra 2-3mm at the wide angle are very significant. If it were a constant f 4 it would be the perfect lens, but even with the variable aperture, it's quite good.

Only question I have is the price. I'm not a big fan of used lenses, but that's just me. I'd rather pay a slight premium for the warranty and security. (Actually my preferred option is to buy from the Canon refurbished store, but that's probably not an option for you) For U.S. the price seems a bit high for a used lens, but it may be reasonable in your market.


----------



## samkatz (Jul 26, 2012)

1. Best lens I ever used for general wide to short tele. I've had many others bought and sold incl 18-55 IS, 17-895 USM, sigma 17-70 etc I had rented the 15-85 and the 24-105 L together, took a lot of shots, could barely tell the difference in IQ, so I got the 15-85 to save a few $$ and I wanted the shorter end of the zoom.

Very good build for a non-L, despite reviews I have seen no CA, yes, some vignetting which is automatically removed in processing, very sharp, etc etc

It's not my money, but I would fork over a few extra bucks if you can to get a new one rather than a used one.
I know it's a lot, but today, lenses are not just glass , they have moving parts(IS, AF) etc. I would only buy a used lens from a reputable dealer who tests and checks out lenses. Not that an individual seller would be out to stick you w/a lemon, it's just that he/she might not be aware of the true condition of the lens.

good luck


----------



## sootzzs (Jul 26, 2012)

samkatz said:


> 1. Best lens I ever used for general wide to short tele. I've had many others bought and sold incl 18-55 IS, 17-895 USM, sigma 17-70 etc I had rented the 15-85 and the 24-105 L together, took a lot of shots, could barely tell the difference in IQ, so I got the 15-85 to save a few $$ and I wanted the shorter end of the zoom.
> 
> Very good build for a non-L, despite reviews I have seen no CA, yes, some vignetting which is automatically removed in processing, very sharp, etc etc
> 
> ...



Yeah, that is how I feel about used electronics in general. But a new one is a gray market lens with only one year warranty anyway. Did you own the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS macro??? How was it compared to 15-85?


----------



## sootzzs (Jul 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I've had this lens for almost three years. It is my standard, walk around lens on a 7D. Robust build, very sharp. There is no real comparison between this lens and the cheap kit lenses. The extra 2-3mm at the wide angle are very significant. If it were a constant f 4 it would be the perfect lens, but even with the variable aperture, it's quite good.
> 
> Only question I have is the price. I'm not a big fan of used lenses, but that's just me. I'd rather pay a slight premium for the warranty and security. (Actually my preferred option is to buy from the Canon refurbished store, but that's probably not an option for you) For U.S. the price seems a bit high for a used lens, but it may be reasonable in your market.



Well, new gray market one costs here (Israel) 790$. I saw it for 699$ on B&H. But the shipping and taxes will even the prices, so it is not worth it.


----------



## papa-razzi (Jul 26, 2012)

Sounds like you have your mind made up on the 15-85. It is a great lens, lots of good reviews, etc. If you can buy it used from someone who will let you look at the lens and test it on your camera, then you should be fine.

You should strongly consider the 17-55 f/2.8. If you are doing indoor shots and flash always isn't an option, then this lens will make the difference in getting the shot and not getting it. As far as image quality, I would say the 17-55 and the 15-85 are close enough to each other to not make much difference in real-world shooting.

In general, you have a decent kit that covers a wide range, including a fast prime. Therefore, you should be buying new lenses with a specific purpose or type of shooting in mind. Also, I agree with others that suggest saving up for exactly what you want. Lenses outlast several body generations so you will live with what you get for a long time (or constantly end up buying and selling lenses).


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 26, 2012)

imo, i would not buy that lens 15-85mm, but save some more money to buy 24-105mm f/4L. why? here are reasons:

1. build quality comparing to 25-105mm
2. popularity
3. can be used for both FF and Crop
4. pretty good in maintaining its value
5. pretty easy to sale it back whenever you do not like it

you can find used or even brand new from somewhere $800-850. as if you have enough luck, you can even find it more cheaper... I have used this 24-105mm for a while and have no complain... note: 15-85mm might give you slightly greater bokeh than 24-105mm (just my guess and i am not sure since i do not have 15-85mm to test with).

my 2 cents


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> imo, i would not buy that lens 15-85mm, but save some more money to buy 24-105mm f/4L.



24-105 is too wide for general use on a crop body, and large-heavy

15-85mm is a terrific lens, one of my favorites, it's never been off my 60D. Touch slow, ya, but 60D has good high ISO performance to cover in most situations and you often want to stop down to near 5.6 most times for more DoF anyway. It's a great walk-around, really sharp where it counts.

17-55mm is a great lens too, not as capable IS as the newer 15-85mm but you have an extra stop worth of aperture which you can actually make use of on occasion for low light or more background blur. I rarely use mine tho, the 15-85's wide end is more useful than one might expect.

Also, if you don't really need the IS on a 17-55mm 2.8, have a look at the Tamron, the NON-stabilized version is actually a bit better than the newer OS one and IQ is pretty decent for the $ I'm ordering one for my Nikon's to sort of make up for them not having the great 15-85mm like Canon.

BTW - a friend of mine managed to nab a new 15-85mm at London Drugs in Edmonton this spring on some kind of sale for under $500. I told him to not even think about it as they were going for more than that used! He's very happy he's got one on his T2i now.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 26, 2012)

.
I don't think you can make a mistake with the 15-85mm. It's my everyday lens (and I shoot every day) on a T2i and has been for two years. The only thing that gives me somewhat better images are L lenses, but it's hardly noticeable. The IS gives you up to a four-stop advantage so even in low light you can get a good image at slow shutter speeds. It's not going to give you the bokeh of a wide aperture, nor is it going to slow motion blur, but it does most things effectively. If you're chasing kids around with it, get a flash. Also, as someone mentioned, it does a fine job with macro shots. Only my EF-S 60mm does better, but that's a macro lens.

When I first got my lens, it had some uneven focus across a plane. It went back to Canon and it's been flawless ever since.

My suggestion is to spend $640 at the Canon refurb store for the lens. You'll get a 90-day Canon warranty -- and the assurance than Canon looked at it and made sure it's working properly.

The only real alternative in this class is the 17-55mm. It's a great lens with a constant f/2.8. But if you want the broader range, this is the only one to have on a crop body.


----------



## marshall (Jul 26, 2012)

I own both a 15-85 and a 17-55. The 15-85 is the lens that I use the most as I prefer the reach. The 17-55 is great to shot at dusk or indoors (or moving things!). The AF is also faster in the 17-55, especially in low light. IQ-wise, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference though. Both lenses are significantly better than the kit and you will notice the difference right away. Like you, I got frustrated by the kit lens relatively quickly after realizing that my old point and shoot was producing similar IQ and went for the 15-85. Extremely happy.

I am in general hesitant with used equipment unless the seller has good references and he/she is willing to take the lens back if there is an obvious problem. I think for the price you are being asked, at least in the US, you are very close to a refurbished one. Refurbished lenses -especially factory refurbished ones- are often almost like new and you get some sort of warranty + the ability to return it if you feel something is fishy. 

You cannot go wrong with the 15-85. The only reason I got the 17-55 is because I had to do some indoors shootings for a friend and that is something the 15-85 is not good at (especially on a rebel where you cannot really pump up the ISO). For daylight photo I normally take the 15-85 and leave the 17-55 at home without thinking it twice.

Cheers,
Marshall


----------



## sootzzs (Jul 29, 2012)

Thanks guys for your very insightful feedback! Really appreciated! 

I've decided to pay the extra 165$ and get a new one as I reasoned that I will probably use this lens for at least next 3 years and prefer it new.

I did order one from a local retailer. The thing is they told me that the cheaper price is because it dismantled from a 7D kit. Can that somehow affect the quality of the lens?? How should I check the lens when it will arrive?


----------



## electricpanic (Jul 30, 2012)

Thanks for the advice. I am about to buy mine. but I am still bit confused :-\


----------

