Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for a 550D
Asked 12/5/2011
4 views
2 answers
0
I shoot with a Canon 550D and currently have the 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS kit lenses. I'm considering either:
- Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus Canon 50mm f/1.8
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
My main uses are travel/general-purpose shooting, portraits, events such as weddings and parties, and low-light photography. The 15-85mm seems more versatile for travel because of the wider range, while the 17-55mm offers a constant f/2.8 aperture and image stabilization. The 50mm f/1.8 would help for portraits and low light, but it may be less flexible indoors or at events.
Would the 15-85mm + 50mm f/1.8 be a good substitute for the 17-55mm f/2.8, or are they really suited to different jobs? Are there other lens options in this kind of budget worth considering for a 550D user upgrading from the kit zoom?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
8
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).
Originally by user7373. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7373
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
They’re not really direct substitutes; the better choice depends on how you shoot.
If you want one lens to live on the camera most of the time, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is the more flexible event/indoor option. Several users found the combination of constant f/2.8 plus image stabilization more useful than switching between a zoom and a prime, especially when things are moving quickly.
If your priority is travel and general-purpose versatility, the EF-S 15-85mm is a strong choice. It has a more useful zoom range, good image quality, and is often preferred when light is not the main limitation. Pairing it with the 50mm f/1.8 gives you a cheap, capable portrait and low-light lens.
The 50mm f/1.8 is widely praised and is worth owning either way, but a prime + slower zoom is not the same as having a fast standard zoom. Also, f/2.8 helps, but it is not a miracle in very low light; the 50mm’s much wider aperture is still a big advantage there.
One alternative mentioned is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC), which offers a similar fast-standard-zoom role at lower cost.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which Canon walk-around lens is the better choice: 18-135mm STM, 18-200mm, or 17-85mm?
Which lenses should I keep when moving from Canon APS-C to full frame?
Which general-purpose travel zoom is best for a Canon 600D: 15-85mm or 18-135mm?
Best walkaround zoom for a Canon 7D: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L?
Is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS a worthwhile upgrade from the EF-S 15-85mm on a 60D?