Are the Canon 15-85mm + 50mm f/1.8 adequate substitutes for the 17-55mm f/2.8?

Question

The EF-S 15-85mm lens is a relatively recent lens, and I haven't seen too many recommendations on it thus far. However, most of the reviews have been very positive and the lens is said to be optically on par with the 17-55mm. It sacrifices the constant wider aperture for better zoom range that could translate to fewer lens changes. As for the 50mm f/1.8, it is one of the most recommended lenses, dirt cheap and suited to low light & portrait photography.

The two lens combo is also cheaper than the single one (around INR 53,000 vs INR 64,000). The usage scenarios I have in mind are the following, along with my thoughts:

• General purpose\travel photography - the 15-85mm seems to be more versatile than the 17-55mm for this, especially when light is not a constraint
• Portraits - the 17-55mm would be quite versatile in this regard (however, 55mm feels a bit short for getting tight shots, and getting close can lead to distortion)
• Event photography (weddings, parties etc) - the 17-55mm has the low light advantage over the 15-85mm, and 50mm can get a bit long in closed environments
• Low light shooting - the 17-55mm is more versatile, but the 50mm has a wider aperture

So, which would be a better upgrade for my current setup comprising of the Canon 550D with the 18-55mm IS & 55-250mm IS kit lenses? Are there any alternatives worth considering in this budget?

Note: I had asked a similar question regarding upgrades for the kit lens, but that was without a particular scenario or lens in mind.

Answer 1

Before you get any other lens, get the 50mm f/1.8. Its a must-have lens for anyone even remotely interested in portrait photography. You just can't go wrong with it. Actually I never used the 18-55 after I got my fifty prime.

For your zoom needs, you would be better off with a third party lens like the the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). At INR 21,000 ($440) it costs a third of the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, and has great overall performance.

Here is my story:

I had a similar dilemma a while back. I had a Canon 500D with the 18-55 kit lens and was looking for a new lens. Since my budget was tight I purchased the 50mm f/1.8 and I was blown away by what a difference the wider aperture made. Amazing low light performance and sweet looking bokeh made it difficult to take a bad shot with it.

But with a crop factor of 1.6, I found it a little too tight for indoor use and while 'zooming with your feet' is the norm with a prime lens, I found myself running out of space indoors.

Also I used to shoot a lot wide open and found that shooting a portrait at f/1.8, even getting both eyes in focus becomes a challenge. Get a second person in the frame and there is no way you can get both people in focus. So I started stopping it down to about f/2.8 which gave me workable DOF while still giving great low light performance.

This made me realize that I needed a lens with the versatility of the kit lens and the wide aperture like the prime. I was on a tighter budget and hence purchased the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). I have not been disappointed since. I still turn to the 50mm f/1.8 when I really need the extra 2/3rd stop or really shallow DOF, but the Tamron is what I use 95% of the times.

I've shot portraits, concerts, weddings and its always performed well. It would be better if it were a little sharper wide open and if the autofocus wasn't as loud, but its overall performance and versatility trump these minor issues.

---

PS: I'm a huge fan of bokeh and shoot mostly in low light, so I thought it would be useful to show some examples of what f/2.8 lets you do.

This one shows how you can use the shallow DOF at f/2.8 to get sweet bokeh. The 50 prime would have also done wonders here, but you can't keep switching lenses at an event.

---

This one was shot with just a candle to the left (out of the frame) and the lighter (in the frame).

Answer 2

I agree with everything you said except low light.

f/2.8 is still not good enough for many situation, the difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is very little and can almost be ignored. f/5.6 and f/2.8 is only two stops so you are looking at 1/10 turns into 1/40. If you have the impression that f/2.8 is amazingly good for low light, it is not.

15-85 is more flexible, has good quality (just like the 17-55), is better for travelling, and is cheaper and more recent.

I would go for the 15-85 anytime.

If I have to pay more, carry more, reduce my zoom range and use slightly older IS , just for two stops larger aperture, I would rather bump the ISO up and get all the other benefits, as well as saving some money for a 50mm f/1.4!!

Let's not forget that f/5.6 is at 85mm vs the 55mm of the 17-55

Answer 3

I have both the 50mm F1.8 and the 17-55mm F2.8 (and the kit lens), I wouldn't really consider having the prime + kit lens as equivalent.

I found that the situations I used them in were quite different, but the 17-55 is what I would have on the camera 80% of the time. The 50mm prime I found useful for party situations, where you want the max aperture and small size of lens, as well as occasional situations where I knew 50mm would be the right size.

However, most of the time the combination of F2.8 + image stabilisation meant the 17-55 was the best bet, and you don't want to have swap lenses in a hurry.

If you find the extra distance the 15-85 buys you is useful, and generally have enough light, then that might be a good choice. However, I quite often found that on a 550D (18Mpixels) I could use 55mm and crop the picture down to the equivalent of an 100mm shot. As you tend to get good resolution from the 17-55, that works quite well.

I found that having the 17-55 on the camera, and having the 50mm in my bag was the most rounded option (and a telephoto lens for some occasions, but not all the time).