Upgrade from EF-S 15-85 IS

Question

I currently own a Canon 60D, and I am perfectly happy with the camera. It is going to be years until I move to a better (most likely full-frame) body.

My main, walk-around lens is the 15-85. I am also very happy with this lens, although I also know its shortcomings, like the variable aperture (3.5-5.6).

But this morning, as a "what if" exercise, I started thinking about upgrading this lens.

Since my 60D is a crop sensor body, the closest and cheapest upgrade I can do is the 17-55 EF-S USM IS. It has a constant aperture of 2.8, and people say that it produces the best picture quality of all EF-S lenses. The upgrade would probably cost me $300-$500, depending on the price I sell my 15-85 at, and whether I want a used or new 17-55.

But 'upgrading' from an EF-S lens to another EF-S lens is not really upgrading, is it? It is more like switching between two similar quality products. Is it worth it?

A TRUE upgrade would be to get an L lens. So, assuming that price is no object (one can only dream :(), what L lens would you recommend to replace my 15-85?

EDIT: What I would look for in the ideal replacement lens.

Thanks for all the answers so far. One conclusion I came to after reading them is that there is no point for me to invest in L glass if I care about wide angle on my crop sensor body. And I do.

I like my 15-85 because it offers me the flexibility of being able to capture moments like a few snapshots in a restaurant with friends, or my 2 years old daughter who won't sit in one place for long - definitely not long enough for me to switch lenses.

I could give up the 2mm difference on the wide end of the spectrum, if the 17-55 offered me much higher IQ than the 15-85 does.

Hence the followup question - Please let me know if you upgraded from 15-85 to 17-55 and if that was a right decision.. I know it is all personal - and that is what I am asking about - what was your experience with such upgrade if you did it?

Answer 1

I'm going to step around the discussion of the 17-55 EF-S lens and its comparison to an L lens as thats a loaded question that has lots of heated debate surrounding it. To address the meat of your question which I take as 'I want to upgrade to an L lens, which one?' that depends on what you're looking for in a lens. Unfortunately there isn't a single L lens that will cover the same range as the 15-85, if you're looking on the wide end of a zoom lens there is the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40 f4L, if you're looking for a mid zoom that covers a wide range then look at the 24-105 f4L.

But I bet you already knew your options and you're looking for a nudge in one direction or another and in this case it really comes down to how much do you use the 15-23mm range of your current lens?. If its 'not so much and I wish I had more reach' then certainly go for the 24-105L, however if you primarily shoot on the wide end then perhaps you should strongly consider the 16-35L, 17-40L or even the 17-55.

Answer 2

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 isn't an "L" lens -- that's absolutely true. Before dismissing it, though, I think it's important to remember that Canon won't label any EF-S lens an "L" since it wouldn't work on their pro bodies. The performance of the lens, though, is considered to be excellent -- definitely competitive with "L" offerings, and very possibly even better than something like the 17-40 f/4 L, which is highly-regarded on full-frame bodies, but isn't universally loved on crop-sensor bodies. In this instance, the EF-S lens only has to serve one master, which seems to give it a bit of an advantage.

The 17-55 can't offer a couple of benefits that are reserved only for "real" L lenses -- the red ring on the lens and "real" weather sealing. The red ring is cosmetic, of course, but if that sort of thing's important to you, you'd have to paint on your own ring if you got the 17-55. Weather sealing is another matter, though. Canon's pretty wishy-washy in terms of claiming weather sealing capabilities for anything short of its pro bodies and L lenses, but the 17-55 will be better than entry-level, even if it's not up to L standards.

Since you mentioned a possible full-frame upgrade at some point, that might also be a factor for you. You wouldn't be able to use any EF-S lens with a full-frame body, but quality glass tends to hold its value very well, which mitigates this inconvenience a bit.

While you're considering options, don't forget that you'd be giving up some zoom range moving to the 17-55. That may or may not be important to you, but the zoom range of the 15-85 is one of the things I love about that lens.

Lens purchases are always incredibly individualized decisions, and there's no single right answer for everyone when it comes to choosing a lens. The factors that make a lens right for you include your intended usage and the body you'll use for it, as well. When looking at wide-angle lenses on crop bodies, don't rule out an EF-S lens just because it's not an L.

Answer 3

A very nice upgrade is the 17-55 f2.8 Canon lens, one of the best EF-S lenes, and incredible optics. But, as you said, this is a crop lens. One thing to remember is that crop sensors can utilize much wider lens options that full frame sensors, and must in order to get similar field of view. Therefore you find many crop lenses are very wide, such as the 15-85, or 10-20.

On a full frame, the equivalent range lens to your 15-85 is a 24-136, which means either the 28-135 f/3.5 5.6 IS, or the 24-105 f/4 IS L. Therefore either of these lenses would be equivalent to the field of view of your current lens. I believe the 28-135 is a step up slightly, but of course the 24-105 is a great leap.

So a 28-135 gives you less on the wide end, but a bit more on the long end. The 24-105 gives you neither, but you get constant f/4, IS and L quality.

Answer 4

The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is a perfect example of a lens that attempts to be too much of too many different things and as a result doesn't do much of anything as well as a more limited lens can. For a detailed look at the lens, please see: What's wrong with the Canon EF-S 15-85mm?

That being the case, it's not likely anyone will come up with anything anytime soon that has even longer reach and wider maximum apertures and higher image quality. To improve in any of these areas one must be willing to compromise in the others.

• If you want better image quality and/or faster apertures one must be willing to give up such a wide zoom ratio (5.67:1). Examples: EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, EF 24-70mm f/4 L, EF 24mm f/4 L IS. None of these lenses have more than a 3:1 zoom ratio.
• If you want even more reach one must be willing to give up image quality: Examples: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (two versions), EF-s 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
• The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro does give closer focusing capability in exchange for reach on both ends but image quality is only comparable to the EF-S 15-85, not better.

There really are no better options available now than there were when this question was asked over four years ago.