An amazing little lens

[Tronhard]

Lenses specifically built for APS-C bodies are often derided for being of poor quality, yet according to material I have read they have top quality glass in them, simply they are cheaper because the lens bodies are made of lighter materials and they can have simpler optics, being closer to the point of focus.

One such example is the Canon 15-85mm IS USM APS-C lens. It covers a challenging range, yet manages to do so reasonably well. I have been particularly impressed with its close-up performance as shown in the two hand-held shots below.

[Geoff F]

Both are nicely sharp well exposed scenes.

[Wavelength]

Excellent images

[bnnrcn]

Both very nice

[Shadowman]

Nice crisp captures.

[madcrow]

Well done again on handholding, great images.

[NorthernFocus]

Definitely sharp. What do you call the bug in the first shot?

It is interesting how willing people are to "paint them all with the same brush". I suspect purpose built APS-C lenses get a bad rap because so many of them are "kit" lenses due to the target market sector, i.e. people who want DSLRs but at minimal cost. There's no technical reason that APS-C lenses shouldn't perform as good or better than FF lenses.

On the other hand, if one is not concerned with the added size/weight, one can shoot lower end FF lenses and get excellent performance due to only using the center of the lens where it is sharpest, no vignette, etc. Plus it will likely FEEL more robust

[rpcrowe]

Marvelous images, especially the first one...

I have used the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for years now an really like the images that it produces.

My first lens for a DSLR was the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens which does a pretty darn nice job on a crop camera since only the center portion of the image is used.

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and my new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lenses are both stellar performers on crop cameras...

[Cogito]

I echo Dan's comment regarding kit lenses. The lens you're displaying here probably costs about 10 times more than most kit lenses. I'd expect it to behave a little (!) better.
Nice clean images and I assume the first was one-hand held?

[Tronhard]

Hi Dan:

The bug is called a Cicada. They emerge en masse at this time of year to breed and make an amazing din - apparently early sailors to NZ heard the land before they saw it, not sure about that, but its a good storey...

Yes, the lens quality issue is not a simple issue, and a lot of crop sensor gear is under-rated - depending upon what you want to do with it. I have a lot of L glass, but on some of my APS-C bodies do not like them as much as I would have expected - it's interesting how each body and lens combo can be so different. Working with DXO mark data was very enlightening in that respect.

[NorthernFocus]

...The bug is called a Cicada. They emerge en masse at this time of year to breed and make an amazing din...

The reason I asked is because we have the same bug, also called Cicada, in the southern USA. But they are much larger, probably three times as big as that one. Unless you have huge fingers. Old timers call them 17 year locusts. The theory being that every 17 years they breed prolifically and swarm. The dry exoskeletons of the larvae are commonly found clinging to pine bark.

[Tronhard]

I agree with your comments. Like anything there is a range. The 15-85 has been called the secret L lens for its sharpness, but of course it lacks the other characteristics of being FF, and weather resistant. Still, it's a great walk-around lens on an APS-C body.

Yep, almost all of my images are hand held, mostly because I learned my photography when I was travelling for long periods and could not carry a tripod. It's funny as one of the chaps in my club ALWAYS carries an incredibly heavy and intricate tripod that takes ages to set up and get his photo. I will have come up, taken a couple of hand-held shots and moved on long since. That said, I can see he gets some incredible shots.

I echo Dan's comment regarding kit lenses. The lens you're displaying here probably costs about 10 times more than most kit lenses. I'd expect it to behave a little (!) better.
Nice clean images and I assume the first was one-hand held?

[JBW]

The 18/55 that came with my Sony produced excellent results

[Manfred M]

Lenses specifically built for APS-C bodies are often derided for being of poor quality, yet according to material I have read they have top quality glass in them, simply they are cheaper because the lens bodies are made of lighter materials and they can have simpler optics, being closer to the point of focus

Let's just say I would tend to disagree with this statement. While I can't write about Canon cameras, but with Nikon cameras the flange to sensor distance is the same for both APS-C and full frame lenses; the F-mount has been set at 46.5mm and as been used since 1959. They use the same lens mount and focus identically. The moment we have a mirror box, these constrain how close the back of the lens can be placed to the shutter. Mirrorless cameras don't have this constraint, so the back of the lens can be set much closer to the shutter.

The only real difference between what a full frame lens and a APS-C lens are the image circle that these two lens types cover, so while the input aperture fixes the maximum aperture, the back-end elements can be smaller because of the smaller image circle covered in APS-C sensor cameras.

[GBO25]

In the Canon world an EF-S lens can't be fitted to a full frame body. Canon make them that way because there is an extension at the rear of the lens that comes closer to the image sensor and it would be hit by the larger full frame camera's mirror when it flips up to shoot. APS-C bodies (7xx, 70 & 80D and 7D) have a white alignment line on the body for EF-S lenses and a red alignment mark for EF lenses.

I concuur fully with Trev about the 15-85. My very first DSLR was a 600D body and the 15-85 lens. It's the crop frame equivalent of the 24-105 full frame lens. I've moved on to a higher level body now but the good old 15-85 still takes 80-90 percent of my shots. It mightn't be L series but it's a fabulous lens and I would always recommend it. Those two shots of the cicada and spider show part of the reason why. It's also a great landscape, night sky and overall great general purpose lens.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

I was speaking only for Canon lenses so I have no issue with your comment about Nikon, but maintain my statement for Canon since that was the lens brand and type I was using. They ARE in fact quite different from Nikon as the following quick reference to Wikipedia shows. (I can get you a more authoritative reference if you want, but this says it neatly).


On the left is a Canon EF mount, on the right a Canon EF-S, placing the back element much closer to the sensor. This only works because the mirror and sensor are smaller.

"Canon introduced the Canon EF-S of lenses in 2003 alongside the 300D. These lenses place the rear of the lens closer to the camera's sensor (referred to as short back focus). This has several benefits, including lighter lenses and a narrower field of view. EF-S lenses will not physically mount on Canon's full-frame digital or 35mm film SLRs......
Nikon makes DX format lenses for their line of APS-C digital cameras. These can be physically mounted to all Nikon digital and film SLR camera bodies since 1977"

.

Let's just say I would tend to disagree with this statement. While I can't write about Canon cameras, but with Nikon cameras the flange to sensor distance is the same for both APS-C and full frame lenses; the F-mount has been set at 46.5mm and as been used since 1959. They use the same lens mount and focus identically. The moment we have a mirror box, these constrain how close the back of the lens can be placed to the shutter. Mirrorless cameras don't have this constraint, so the back of the lens can be set much closer to the shutter."

.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred:

I was speaking only for Canon lenses so I have no issue with your comment about Nikon, but maintain my statement for Canon since that was the lens brand and type I was using. They ARE in fact quite different from Nikon as the following quick reference to Wikipedia shows. (I can get you a more authoritative reference if you want, but this says it neatly).


On the left is a Canon EF mount, on the right a Canon EF-S, placing the back element much closer to the sensor. This only works because the mirror and sensor are smaller.

"Canon introduced the Canon EF-S of lenses in 2003 alongside the 300D. These lenses place the rear of the lens closer to the camera's sensor (referred to as short back focus). This has several benefits, including lighter lenses and a narrower field of view. EF-S lenses will not physically mount on Canon's full-frame digital or 35mm film SLRs......
Nikon makes DX format lenses for their line of APS-C digital cameras. These can be physically mounted to all Nikon digital and film SLR camera bodies since 1977"

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance tells me that both the EF and EF-S lenses have a flange to sensor distance of 44mm.

[Tronhard]

yes... The reference you just quoted gives the distance from the lens mounting FLANGE NOT the back element. If you look at the images of the two lens types, the flanges are in line and the EF-S lens clearly projects way past the EF mount. The last element is right on the edge of that extra section.

Have you actually held one of the Canon EF and EF-S lenses in your hand? If I was to try to attach an EF-S lens to a FF body the mirror will not let it fit because the projecting back element impinges on its space.

Perhaps this article will explain it better than me, to your satisfaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance tells me that both the EF and EF-S lenses have a flange to sensor distance of 44mm.

[Tronhard]

Hi Tony:

Yes, the association of EF-S mount with inferior lenses is a rather unfair. Without doubt the 75-300mm kit lens is a fairly horrendous object, one that I got with my first DSLR kit and disposed of quickly! The silver band shared among so many EF-S lenses seems to lump them all into the same category.

Some 'kit' lenses are great at what they are designed to do, for example I have used the 18-135mm IS STM USM lens that comes as a kit with the higher-end Canon 70D, 80D and 7D bodies is actually great for what it is trying to do. Absolutely it will not perform as well as lenses with short focal ranges or Fixed Focal Length lenses, but as a walk-around lens, used in its sweet spot, it can render some great images.

Even the 18-55mm and 55-250 lenses have evolved into a reasonable pieces of kit, especially the STM versions: a friend of mine won a competition with an image taken on one of those, being complemented on the quality of image in particular!

The 18-135 and 15-85mm lenses are all in a higher bracket, costing probably 2 -3 times what one would pay for the 18-55 or 55-250 kit lenses - they share more robust componentry including full metal mounts, as opposed to the cheaper lenses with more plastic in their build.

There is a range of Canon lenses that are a mix of EF and EF-S lenses with a striped gold band around them. They are more robustly built, with more metal in the casing. These include the excellent 60mm EF-S and the 100mm EF macro lenses. They also have a great 70-300mm zoom that has recently been updated, although the older Mk I version that I have still renders great results and is a bargain right now.


This was taken on the EF 70-300mm IS USM Mk I (when I should have been studying for an exam!)

Definitely Canon have taken a stated position that many of the EF-S lenses are not intended to lose any quality in optics, but will be made simpler, lighter and cheaper because of their short back focus design. I just wish they would be more clearly defined and marked in their lineup: something like... Consumer kit grade, Enthusiast grade and Prosumer grade. Then of course there is the L series!

[bnnrcn]

What a beautiful bird and image, a seagull? I would clone the tiny bit of hair on top of the head