Header banner
Revain logoHome Page
Chia Hao ᠌ photo
Taipei
1 Level
100 Review
199 Karma

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 Chia Hao ᠌

Revainrating 3 out of 5

The quality was generally satisfied, there were minor shortcomings.

Those who admire "sharpness" most likely switched from unintelligible whale glasses (and corny have no experience with good lenses (not to mention top ones)), alas . no offense:) I used a Tamron that was somewhat damaged to replace it, and at first I was under the impression that I had purchased a faulty copy since the difference between it and the quicker and more affordable 17-50 lens from Tamron a was so obvious. I attempted a few more copies, but in the end, the seller went ahead and agreed to exchange the item in exchange for an additional payment of 17-40/4. (although according to the ZoZPP he could not do this). When tested with a Canon 50D, the lens had characteristics that were about average. The amusing thing is that in the majority of situations (we are talking about "everyday"), these are glass + cropped cameras from Canon, for which this model is built, will quietly and unobtrusively "make as standing" the majority of modern smartphones (at a much lower price). The street was lit in a variety of ways, including studio lights and flashes everywhere: ( It is possible that landscape painters will have a pretty high demand for it because, with the right type of plot or design, it is possible to "defeat" its kind of blurry-softness. In all honesty, my Xiaomi Note 4x produces an image that is noticeably superior in terms of its level of detail, and it costs almost a third less than this lens. It is impossible to edit a file from a smartphone using the same version of Photoshop; but, how many "regular users" of modern "mass market" DSLRs actually do this? In general, it is recommended that you either take the Tamron, or save up and get something like the 17-40. The difference in the picture's quality (which is obvious given that there would be no processing) will be pretty noticeable. P.S. Even the venerable Industar 61 LZ, which is decades old, "does" this model:) (if we ignore the manual focus and instead concentrate on the focal length, that is to say precisely on the picture) P. P. S. It is possible that those who require a stabilizer have a relatively high demand for it.

Pros
  • If "solid" solely refers to the (relatively) outward look. Okay, possibly a metal mount.
Cons
  • Price. Picture quality. Altering the aperture while shooting at varying focal lengths. Sharpness is not present in soaps, especially at that price.