Canon 15-85 IS USM vs Canon
17-85 vs Sigma 18-125 |
|
When I bought my first Canon camera, the
first lens I got was the Canon 17-85 IS. I
have used it for more than one year on the
old 350D; I liked its fast autofocus, its
versatility and the image quality was quite
good, even though it has a pretty noticeable
chromatic aberration and distortion. In
2009, Canon has announced the 17-85
replacement: the new 15-85 is a bit wider
and it promises better image quality. Does
it maintain the promise? I have tested it on
my Canon 7D, together with the Sigma 18-125
OS, a lens that offers similar features at a
much lower price.
|
|
|
Thanks to...
A special thanks to DigitalFoto (www.digitalfoto.it)
who loaned me the lenses used for this
review! Digitalfoto is one of the biggest
camera stores in Italy, and I bought here
the majority of my cameras and lenses...they
have great prices, they are fast and serious
- highly recommended!
| |
Specifications
|
|
|
Canon 15-85 IS USM
|
Canon 17-85 IS USM
|
Sigma 18-125 OS HSM
|
|
Focal length
|
15-85 mm
|
17-85 mm
|
18-125 mm
|
|
Macro ratio
|
0.21x
|
0.20x
|
0.26x
|
|
Max Aperture
|
f/3.5-5.6
|
f/4-5.6
|
f/4-5.6
|
|
Stabilization
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Autofocus
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
AF Motor
|
|
Closest Focus
|
0.35 meters
|
0.30 meters
|
0.35 meters
|
|
Dimensions
|
82 x 87 mm
|
79 x 92 mm
|
74 x 88 mm
|
|
Weight
|
575 g
|
475 g
|
500 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Price
|
$ 720
|
$ 450
|
$ 340
|
|
Production
|
2009-
|
2005-2010
|
2004-
|
|
Built quality,
image stabilization and autofocus
The old Canon 17-85 had a quite good
build quality, and the Canon 15-85 is a bit
improved, it has a slightly more solid,
professional feel. My Canon 24-105 L IS USM
feels more solid, but in practice, this
feeling does not matter much: last year the
aperture of my 24-105 got stuck without any
reason, and it cost me 250 Euros to repair,
and this year the lens was broken again,
this time for my fault (I dropped it holy
cow!).
Actually, the lighter weight of the 15-85
may even help to reduce the damage in case
of droppings. Regarding the Sigma, the built
quality is not bad, but it is not as good as
the Canons.
There is no difference between the AF of
the new Canon 15-85 and old 17-85: both have
very fast autofocus, with the silent
ultrasonic motor and full time manual focus.
The Sigma is much worse: in spite of the
"HSM" label, it has not the true ultrasonic
AF motor; its AF is clearly slower, noisier
and it lacks of full time manual focus.
In terms of image stabilization, again,
there are no differences between the two
versions of the Canon, while the IS of the
Sigma 18-125 feels a little less effective.
If you plan to use often the lens without
tripod, the stabilization helps a lot!
|
|
Image quality
comparison
I have tested the lenses on my Canon 7D
(18 megapixel, APS-C). The lenses were
mounted on tripod; I have used mirror lock
up and self timer. The following images are
100% crop from the unprocessed RAW file. I
have tested the lenses both wide open and at
f/8.
|
|
Canon 15-85 IS USM |
Canon 17-85 IS USM |
Sigma 18-125 OS HSM |
15/17/18
(wide
open, center) |
 |
 |
 |
15/17/18
(f/8,
center) |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
15/17/18
(wide
open,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
15/17/18
(f/8,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
|
At the shortest focal length (15mm for
the Canon 15-85, 17mm for the 17-85 and 18mm
for the 18-125), the new Canon 15-85 is
clearly the winner. In the center it is
about on par with the old 17-85, and even
the Sigma is not too bad. In the corners,
instead, the 15-85 is sharper than the old
17-85 and it has less chromatic aberration.
The corners of the Sigma are a disaster.
|
|
Canon 15-85 IS USM |
Canon 17-85 IS USM |
Sigma 18-125 OS HSM |
35mm,
wide
open, center) |
 |
 |
 |
35mm
(f/8,
center) |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
35mm
(wide
open,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
35mm
(f/8,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
|
At 35mm, the new 15-85 is again the
winner. It is a little sharper than the
17-85 in the center and a lot sharper in the
corners. The Sigma 18-125 is good in the
center, while the corner are pretty poor,
even though they are not as bad as at 18mm.
|
|
Canon 15-85 IS USM |
Canon 17-85 IS USM |
Sigma 18-125 OS HSM |
85mm
(wide
open, center) |
 |
 |
 |
85mm
(f/8,
center) |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
85mm
(wide
open,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
85mm
(f/8,
corner) |
 |
 |
 |
|
At 85mm in the center the 15-85 is the
best, followed by the 17-85 and the Sigma
18-125. In the corners, instead, the old
17-85 shows a little less chromatic
aberration and more detail then the new
15-85; the Sigma has much softer corners
than both.
Distortion and
angle of view
|
 |
 |
|
Canon 15-85 at 15mm |
Canon 17-85 at 17mm |
| |
|
 |
 |
|
Sigma 18-125 at 18mm |
Canon 24-105mm at 24mm |
|
Even though there is not a night and day
difference in angle of view, the 15-85 has
some advantage in comparison with the 17-85
and 18-85. Other than that, the new 15-85
show a bit less distortion than the 17-85
and Sigma 18-125.
Conclusions
The new Canon 15-85 is a great zoom; it
improves both image and built quality in
comparison with its predecessor. Is it worth
the price? Personally, I think it is a bit
overpriced...$ 720 is a lot for a 3.5-5.6
zoom, in spite of the good quality. That
said, I expect the price to come down with
time, and overall I like this lens. If you
have a limited budget and you want something
similar, don't forget the old Canon 17-85 -
it is much cheaper and it comes close to the
quality of 15-85!
I don't recommend, instead, the Sigma
18-125, due to its poor image quality and
its slow autofocus. The Canon 17-85 costs
just $100 more, and it is much better in
every respect!
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about
this article, feel free to ask in the
Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
|
