Will I really see better photos to guarantee the cost?
Honestly, probably not. Recording better photos has much more to do with the knowledge, experience and creative eye of the photographer than with the slight differences between comparably good lenses or camera bodies.
If you can not explain what your current two lenses are, that limit the ability to create the photos, you might want the slightly better optical quality and slightly faster maximum apertures probably no real improvements to your photos. In fact, if you know the limitations and know how to handle them, if you use larger apertures, you might get pictures that are not as good as you could do with your two current lenses.
The key benefits of the three "L" lenses you are considering are durability and resistance to adverse environmental conditions. These features are crucial for working professionals who put their equipment through the Wringer every day. Yes, they are visually a little better than your current lenses. Their "sweet spots" are larger in terms of the focal lengths and openings, where they occur at a slightly higher level. However, in terms of optical performance, they are much closer to the current lenses than to the true premium lenses in each category, e.g. B. EF 11-24 mm 1: 4L, EF 24 – 70 mm 1: 2,8L II or EF 70 -200 mm 1: 2,8L IS II. Even these lenses only make a noticeable difference when used with or used near open openings. At f / 5.6 or f / 8, there is little difference in the optical world.
If you really have more options for taking pictures on vacation that you can not achieve with your current lenses, consider an ultra wide-angle lens such as the EF-S 10-22mm f / 3.5-4.5 , That would only be good if you are interested in taking in the current 15-85mm wider views.
All these years, I wish I had quality L-glass … Because, as someone said, there's a lot in the eye. I feel like I have that. I shoot only in manual mode and search for the color bangs … Sharp scenes that I suspect come with "good glass".
There is nothing "magic" about L-glass. For example, the EF-S 17-55 mm 1: 2.8 IS in a crop sensor is optically about 24 mm better than the EF 16-35 mm 1: 2.8L II. It is also almost the optical equivalent to the original EF 24-70mm 1: 2,8L, with the "L" on a FF body and the 17-55mm on one of the newer grain cultures. The newer 24-70mm is optically much better, from 24mm to 70mm at each aperture, even with the wider aperture, as the newer high-resolution cameras revealed the shortcomings of the older 24-70mm.
For f / 5.6-f / 8-f / 11 apertures, which are used for most landscape shots, virtually all current Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. lenses are very good throughout the image, assuming They are in the right orientation and have developed a flat field. There are some very expensive lenses that have been developed for specific uses and leave the field curvature uncorrected. That's one of the things that make the EF 85mm 1: 1,2L a "portrait lens" with such a unique look. Such a lens, while costing thousands of dollars, is not a suitable lens for most landscape work.
I suspect this Farbrausch sharp scenes It's more about catching the right quality light at the right angle with a camera mounted on a stone tripod. I know many landscape photographers who drive to the same spot every day until they finally get the light they want. One day it may be too cloudy. The next day there may be too much or too little moisture or dust in the air. It could rain the next day. Just because you're standing in the same spot from which an iconic photo was taken does not mean that you always have the same light, even if you have the same angle of the sun. Nothing compares to the light coming from a low sun in the late afternoon, after a storm has just passed over us and the sky in the west becomes clearer. The light is so saturated and golden that you can do it practically feeling Its warmth immerses everything in Technicolor and makes the world look like a Kodachrome slide. The same place at the same time of day the day before or the day after can look flat and lifeless under a comforting sky.
In the digital age, we can "fix" the light in the inbox much easier and with a larger width than in the color dark room, but we still can not move the sun from one point in the sky to another.
Here's my suggestion: For the next few weeks, you should travel at the same time every day at the same time with camera, tripod and cable release to the most scenic spot in your area. If the sun is most favorable for your chosen location, probably go in the early morning or late afternoon. Make the most of what you can do with the tripod and cable release. If the shutter speed is less than 1/200 seconds, also use the mirror lock. On even days, use your 15-85 between 55-85 mm. On odd days use the 55-250 mm between 55 and 85 mm. If you have a 50mm 1: 1.8 lens or other main lens, also throw it into the mix. At the end of the two weeks, edit the best shot of each day and compare the 14 photos. Let us know what you think about the 14 photos and how they compare with the others.
There is an old saying that has existed for a long time: Gear does not matter
That's really only half the story.
The full truth is: Gear does not matter – until it works.
When the limits of your equipment really start to grow in importance and where you work as a photographer, you know it.
P.S.- The reason why the 16-35mm f / 4 gets better reviews is if you do not really, really, really need the f / 2.8 lens for moving objects in low light is the f / 4 lens good or even better for all f / 4 f-stops. And it's cheaper to boot.