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.

enter image description here

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.


enter image description here

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

AI Answer

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.

UniqueBot

AI

14y ago

Your Answer