Review on Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Lens: High-Quality Standard Zoom for Canon DSLR Cameras by Wisnu Buana ᠌

In general, a very successful lens, primarily due to the fact that it may be used for a variety of purposes. I was able to get some stunning landscapes, as well as a reportage, a portrait, and a macro image of it. The main problem with landscape photography is the blurry angles between 15 and 16 millimeters. After about 18 millimeters, the angles are much clearer, but this is only noticeable when looking at a large print or viewing the image at 100 percent. Even when viewed at a wide angle, there is a little barrel and HA; however, the profile in FS corrects these flaws so that there is almost no evidence of them left. The colors are decent, but they are not flawless; yet, they require relatively minimal touch-up in comparison to good elech hues. The contrast is fantastic, and as a result, you are able to sharpen virtually imperceptible. I had three copies, and the rightmost margin was a touch fuzzy on each one of them. I don't know if I was just really fortunate or if it's a problem with an optical design, but it's a fact that I had a total of three copies of it for the previous two years. I always liked the portraits that it produced at the long end, and despite the fact that it had a completely non-portrait aperture, at f5.6 there was quite a nice expensive bokeh. There were no hexagons or donuts in the bokeh, and the sharpness at the long end was excellent, although it was somewhat softer than at the short end. At 85 millimeters, it is also interesting to shoot objects made from MDF due to the beautiful bokeh and decent sharpness in the center of the frame, which is ideal for photographing flowers. The construction, despite having a creeping trunk, is superior to that of the 24-105L. Furthermore, in contrast to the 24-105L, the trunk of the 15-85 did not fall out when the lens was tilted down after being used for a period of six months. Although I did not submerge the lens in water, I did once drop it on stones, and other than a little scratch, it suffered no other damage, which indicates that it is durable. The performance of the lens has not been negatively affected in any way, despite the fact that it has been used for many months in hard field circumstances, with the exception of a few dust particles that have no effect. Despite this, I believe that the lens is among the finest for crop photography in terms of its overall performance across the board, including AF, sharpness, distortion, and constructive. If there are glasses that are better at anything, then they will, on average, still come out on the losing end. except for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which is superior not only because of its aperture but also because it has more uniform sharpness across the entire field of the frame. Despite having a much larger XA, less accurate af, a little more weight, and a decent price, this lens is superior to the others.