15-85mm IS USM vs 70-200mm USM

[tutorial93]

Good day, everyone!

I'm going to buy Canon 7D body + lens as a present for my sister. I have 2 photographers who can sell it to me. So, the choice is:

1. Canon 7D + Canon 70-200mm USM lens (total cost 900$)
2. Canon 7D + Canon 15-85mm IS USM lens (total cost 800$)

I've checked characteristics of both lenses. In a short:

15-85mm IS USM:

Costs 800$ (amazon); Reviews 4.3/5. It also has pretty good stuffs like Image stabilization.

70-200mm USM

Costs 600$ (amazon); Reviews 4.8/5. It doesn't have Image stabilization and as I feel for long distances it's very important parameter.

I'd also want to point out that 7D body + 70-200mm costs me 900$ and 7D body + 15-85mm 800$. Even though 15-85mm costs 200$ more that 70-200mm L in average. 

If someone helps with good info, I'll appreciate it a lot.

[jrhoffman75]

Does she have other lenses? If so, what range?

For general photography scenic walk-around the 15-85 will be far more usefull.

70-200 on a 7D is much too long for anything but wildlfie or field sports.

[ebiggs1]

You are a nice brother.  Wow, a 7D and a lens.  Of course you want the  EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens.  It makes more sense and will be far more useful.  Especially if it is the only lens she has.

You did not say which 70-200mm but for $600 it isn't the 70-200mm to have.  IMHO, of course.

I don't have the  EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens so I can not comment on its IQ.  I am going solely on focal length.

[tutorial93]

jrhoffman75, ebiggs1

Thanks for your opinions! Helps a lot.

[tutorial93]

My sister has neither real photocamera, nor lenses. 15-85 seems very good for usage, but im so frustruated of the reviews.

15-85mm 4.25 out of 5 and 70-200mm 4.8 out of 5. Significant difference.

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

Neither score is bad. A higher scoring lens that isn't practical to use doesn't do you any good.

Reviewer comment:

"The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens delivers top-tier image quality over an excellent general purpose focal length range in a nicely-sized/weighted/built body with great AF and an excellent implementation of Image Stabilization at a for-what-you-get great price"

From here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you don't have a camera such that you can tell what field of view you get from each lens see this document:

http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_7_EN.pdf?_ga=2.183836774.17229142...

[tutorial93]

Thank you.

[kvbarkley]

I like my 15-85, and it survived the salt-water splash that killed my T3i. I would be using it now except I got the 18-135 with my T6S. Sometimes I miss that extra 3 mm on the low end!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@tutorial93 wrote:

My sister has neither real photocamera, nor lenses. 15-85 seems very good for usage, but im so frustruated of the reviews.

15-85mm 4.25 out of 5 and 70-200mm 4.8 out of 5. Significant difference.

---

But the two lenses have very different purposes. On a 7D, the 15-85's range is wide angle through moderate telephoto; the 70-200 is a moderate to strong telephoto. There are times when you want a strong telephoto; but as a general-purpose "walking around" lens, the 15-85 is preferable.

[tutorial93]

Thanks for your replies!
Appreciate your opinions.