15-85 vs 24-105..

existent

existent

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,417
Name
Esen
Edit My Images
Yes
I know there are similar posts on this but I think I am slowly going insane trying to make this decision, so I need some help...

I have already eliminated 17-55 as I rather have the longer range compared to f2.8...

Which leaves me down to these two lenses... 24-105 for £700 vs 15-85 for £550..

I am more inclined towards 24-105 as I already have a 10-22 to cover the wide end, but some people say that since it doesn't not overlap with 24-105, I will be changing lenses constantly...

whereas with 15-85, i probably won't need to change lenses as much and i could save £150... and also could use 15-85 as a single lens solution for holidays (24-105 might be too long on its own)...

So.. what should I do? Please remember that I already have 10-22 so 24-105 won't be my widest lens... (many people suggest that 24-105 is not wide enough on a crop on its own)...
 
24-105mm is a much better lens with excellent range on both FF and crop. Changing lenses is not that hard, is it? IF you need wide stick on the 10-22mm. 2mm gap doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't buy a highly overpriced consumer lens.

I also wouldn't write off 17-55mm that easily. For longer range there is an excellent choice of four 70-200mm lenses.
 
i'm actually considering getting a walk-about lens myself. all that lens-swapping is driving me mad. between the two (i'm using a crop factor cam too), i'd get the 15-85mm. why?


  • covers 24-135mm, as opposed to 38-170mm, which isn't wide enough for me.

  • is actually very well-built for an ef-s lens. the only "features" it lacks are weather-sealing and use on ef-only bodies.

  • image quality and speed are comparable to the 24-105mm.

i guess the main considerations are price, whether you want to swap to the ultra-wide every now and then, and whether you are going full-frame anytime soon. if, like me, you lug your gear around for long stretches at a time, you'll value lightweight lenses and not having to swap lenses too much. my 2p.
 
The difference between 15mm and 24mm is huge! Only you can decide if it's significant for what you want.

Personally, I would take the 15-85, or rather the 17-55 2.8. That's actually what I used on a 40D for most of my shooting, together with a 10-22 and 70-200L. Great outfit it was too :thumbs:
 
daugirdas said:
24-105mm is a much better lens with excellent range on both FF and crop. Changing lenses is not that hard, is it? IF you need wide stick on the 10-22mm. 2mm gap doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't buy a highly overpriced consumer lens.

I also wouldn't write off 17-55mm that easily. For longer range there is an excellent choice of four 70-200mm lenses.
Click to expand...

I don't usually mind changing lenses... The problem with 17-55 is that when I was using the kit lens, I always wanted wider or longer fl... I know 2.8 sounds attractive but I take landscape pictures %98 of the time, so I don't really use anything larger than f8...

And also,with a 17-55, lens changing concern moves to the long end where I'd have to swap to 55-250 quite often...

HoppyUK said:
The difference between 15mm and 24mm is huge! Only you can decide if it's significant for what you want.

Personally, I would take the 15-85, or rather the 17-55 2.8. That's actually what I used on a 40D for most of my shooting, together with a 10-22 and 70-200L. Great outfit it was too :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I know it's a huge difference, but I'd have my 10-22 with me all the time... In fact, I'd still be using 10-22 most of the time for my landscape shots, but once in a while comes a scene where I want to get closer than 22mm and I don't have anything until 55mm...

So either 15-85, or 24-105 would cover my needs for longer mm...
 
Whilst I've recently got the 15-85 to replace my kit lens [and have been pleased with it], if I'd already got an UWA I'd go with the 24-105.

The reasons being; the constant aperture, future proofing against going full frame sometime later and of course the fact you've already got 15-22 covered and could get that extra 85-105 reach.

Downside is of course cost, and I suspect the IS on the 15-85 is a step above from the 24-105's, certainly it has impressed me so far shooting handheld in dim light.
 
i'm in a similar brain destroying situation.
i've got a 18-55IS kit lens and a 70-300IS. The 70-300 barely gets used, so I think I'm going to get rid of both of those, and upgrade to the 17-55 f2.8, and (time and money permitting) also get the 70-200L (f4-IS).
I think for a general lens the 17-55 will do most things i need, and have no need for a 10-20 and am unlikely to go FF any time soon.
I've ruled out the 24-105 as a "single use" lens as it wouldn't be wide enough for me, but would go well with your 10-22.
I think (for me) the 17-55 would be more useful than the 15-85 despite losing out in length(s).
For you, I'd say go for the 24-105
 
I've recently upgraded to a 24-105, it's an excellent walkabout lens.
I also have a 10-22 which fits my wide angle needs perfectly.
There have been a couple of times when I could have done with bit more width when using the 24-105 but that was solved with stepping back a few feet.
Shame you are quite some distance from me, otherwise I would suggest taking some shots with my 24-105 before deciding.
 
existent said:
I don't usually mind changing lenses... The problem with 17-55 is that when I was using the kit lens, I always wanted wider or longer fl... I know 2.8 sounds attractive but I take landscape pictures %98 of the time, so I don't really use anything larger than f8...

And also,with a 17-55, lens changing concern moves to the long end where I'd have to swap to 55-250 quite often...



I know it's a huge difference, but I'd have my 10-22 with me all the time... In fact, I'd still be using 10-22 most of the time for my landscape shots, but once in a while comes a scene where I want to get closer than 22mm and I don't have anything until 55mm...

So either 15-85, or 24-105 would cover my needs for longer mm...
Click to expand...

I think that makes the point really - it's a personal decision based on what you shoot and the way you like to work. All good lenses in their way.

Personally, on walkabout I tend to use wide angle more and I like a lot of overlap to save changing lenses. Others are different. However, at the longer end, I seem to be able to do without any overlap at all :shrug:
 
I'm having the same problem for my 50D, but having only the 18-200 kit lens I've finally decided on the Canon 15-85 over the 24-105. At the wide end 24mm on a crop is just not enough for my needs. Yipeee, I can finally get some sleep at night, until I place my order (then I won't be able to sleep again).
 
HoppyUK said:
I think that makes the point really - it's a personal decision based on what you shoot and the way you like to work. All good lenses in their way.

Personally, on walkabout I tend to use wide angle more and I like a lot of overlap to save changing lenses. Others are different. However, at the longer end, I seem to be able to do without any overlap at all :shrug:
Click to expand...


I think because on the longer end, few mm starts to become negligible... so difference between 200mm and 250mm is not that significant compared to 18mm and 24mm...
 
I did the 15-85 as a walkabout for my trip to South Africa. I Love the results so very happy with the purchase. I found I shot at the wide end a lot in towns and to capture views, but then had the length to zoom in capture the detail...

I did switch to my 70-300 for the wildlife though....

Huge number of amazing shots in the flickr group....

Cheers

Mip
 
well.. I have decided on 24-105.... and just purchased it from Kerso :)

even if I don't like it, I should be able to sell it without much loss..

now begins the very long waiting game :bang:
 
I think you made the right choice to go for the 24-105 out of the 2 you mentioned, it will probably keep it's value better and the constant aperture although not f/2.8, is still better than a variable aperture lens. It is also an L lens with L build quality etc.

I went for the 17-55 f/2.8 myself because of the restrictions at the wide end on a crop body like others have mentioned, I also have the Sigma 10-20 but I like the overlap down to 17mm because it does definitely reduce the amount of lens changing for landscapes, and really only need to change when I want to use ultra wide at 10mm for those dramatic shots. I also have the 70-200 f4 L IS for further reach shots.

I wouldn't mind trying out a 24-105 as a walkabout lens, I'm sure it is a great lens otherwise it wouldn't be so hard to choose between them!
 
long wait is finally over and I just picked it up today!!

it looks massive on my 450D... but I love it! :love:

oh and it even came with a printed instruction manual :lol: Kerso must have heard all the comments here about the lack of instruction manual :lol:
 
existent said:
long wait is finally over and I just picked it up today!!

it looks massive on my 450D... but I love it! :love:

oh and it even came with a printed instruction manual :lol: Kerso must have heard all the comments here about the lack of instruction manual :lol:
Click to expand...

It's a cracking lens, I don't think you will regret the choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top