17-55 or 15-85 ? Does the extra 2 elements make any difference?
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
2240661
I have never had any reason to look at either of those numbers. I guess I would contact the manufacturer & pose the question there. Or, you could use the old method of trying both types and see if you can find any "difference" (that's my method of solving a question...)" :) :)
1720131
Yes I have a 65 and you could probably go 80. It's very strong and I love it. Well worth the price!!!
1566801
The 17.5 has concentrated juice. The 55 pound is straight juice and no water needed. Better quality.
1220753
I have the 0.7, and absolutely yes. I've written multiple essays and exams with it. The 0.5 and the 0.7 are the same on the outside, only difference is the lead.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
1822094
The 550 is 30000:1, The 650 is 50000:1 There is a big difference in PQ of these two sets.The 650 being better.
354388
The 14-42 covers 28mm to 84mm. The 17mm covers 34mm. Lower the number the wider of the shot. The advantages are it's smaller and has a faster aperture. Which means a shallower depth of field and it's better in low light. You can't zoom with the 17mm as it's a prime lens. The two lenses compliment each other, not replace each other. Each serve a different purpose.
1890317
I use mine w/a 15# no problems.I would not go higher than 25#, but that should be ok depending on where you mount the base,(strength of mounting surface.)
2155028
I would go two 12s over one 15. I don't know for sure how just one Brutus sounds because I always have 2 going. but I would highly recommend 2 brutus 15s if you could. these things tear my car up.
838238
18-55 doesn't matter. It is the size of the threaded ring on the end of the lens that dictates what size filter to use. It is usually indicated on the Face of the lens.
2189792
I have the 18.5 and 22.5 for my family of four. The 18 will serve you better just in case you need to load it up with food. Charcoal consumption on the 14.5 and 18.5 will be very similar. Always better to have too much room than not enough.
1966314
I use .105 line and it's a little tight so although I've never tried the heavier lines, I suspect .115 is the correct number.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
170141
I don't know the reason for the "add on' only, but I do know the 25 watt bulb is longer than the 15w. To me, the difference between the 15w and the 25w makes a tremendous difference in the look and feel of my Himalayan Salt Lamp. I paid alot more than what they are now when I purchased my bulbs.
1360096
You can choose between two; the highest is 15 and the lower is 13 I believe.