24-105 vs 15-85 IQ and Sharpness!

lucky_13

lucky_13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all Im after some advice again after a disasterous experience with the 17-50 f2.8 which were returned and now im back looking for a all purpose kinda lens.
IQ and Sharpness are very important here so i have narrowed it down to this 2 lenses although feel free to advice other lenses too. out of the question are the very expensive Canon 17-55 f2.8 and sigma 17-50 17-70 or tamron 17-50 vc or non vc.
I know that alot of you will most likely say that 24-105 isn't wide enough for a crop body but the focal lens isn't an issue at the moment as if i were to go for the 24-105 i would probably add a uwa at some other point but that is not important at the moment. and as far as fast or not fast enough i would probably add a fast f/1.4 prime at some point in life.The IQ and sharpness corner to corner is what's important. Although i know all lenses will be sharper at the centre.
Canon 24-105 L is usm f/4 VS Canon 15-85 is usm f/3.5-5.6
 
Had the 24-105 and now have the 15-85 (which I got so I didn't have to keep swapping lenses when I needed more width). AFAIK the IQ of the 15-85 is just as good as the 24-105, but I'm not a pixel peeper.
 
daugirdas said:
have a look at photozone.de

also keep in mind that the look of the images is different at f5.6 vs f4 vs 2.8, so 15-85 is less suitable for portraits.
Click to expand...

Photozone.de talks nonsense about a lot of lenses and while their tests are scientific, they are about as far removed from real world shooting as can be.

Just bear that in mind if you look at their tests (OP).
 
If you need 2.8 then the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the way to go, and hopefully keep its value better than the third party lenses

If you don't then the 15-85mm is a very good buy, after using them both, in real-world shooting they'e both excellent performers.

Using the 24-70 and 24-105 on crop bodies I've found them to not be as sharp as on full frame so I advise the EF-s ones above if you're sticking with the 1.6x crop for at least a little while. If you decide to upgrade to full frame later then hopefully you'll be able to sell them for same or a little less than what you paid. My 10-22 Ef-s is worth more now than what I paid a few years ago!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Photozone.de talks nonsense about a lot of lenses and while their tests are scientific, they are about as far removed from real world shooting as can be.

Just bear that in mind if you look at their tests (OP).
Click to expand...

No I won't be looking @ any scientific tests just real world shooting from real people and hopefully some one has had both lenses and done same test on both lenses.
 
odd jim said:
Photozone.de talks nonsense about a lot of lenses and while their tests are scientific, they are about as far removed from real world shooting as can be.

Just bear that in mind if you look at their tests (OP).
Click to expand...

The problem with photozone is I'd say less the test results and more how they choose to interpret them. Little thought seems to be given to the likely uses of a lens or to problems innate with certain lenses(long zooms for example), its "boarders arent sharp wide open = bad lens".

So read the test scores and others elsewhere(they do afterall test a limated number of samples and are not totaly exhaustive) and draw your own conclusions depending on your own needs.
 
Last edited:
lucky_13 said:
;bonk;
Click to expand...

Again I'd say the only one who can really judge this is you, the 24-105 will likely be a little sharper on the boarders wide open, has a longer range and will be better built. However your 550D isnt weather sealed so that feature is somewhat of a waste, it isnt very wide meaning you'd need to carry your UWA with you and change more often than with a 15-85mm and its quite a bit heavier.

I'd look at how you intend to use these lenses, if carrying both, changing more often and the extra weight is fine for you then the 24-105 maybe worth going for, you often like to shoot wide and just take one lens with you or want to limate changes the 15-85mm maybe worth considering.
 
I guess the best way to find out is to pop into a store and try them both on my 550D but every store i went in they never had ether lens in stock!
I have been looking @ different forums on the same topic and i am amazed @ how many 7D users have sold they'r 24-105 in favour of the 15-85!
I guess tha speaks volumes with in itself.:shrug:
 
Last edited:
The 15-85 covers pretty much the whole general range from decently wide to decently telephoto with a very effective image stabiliser. If i were only looking to take one lens on a trip for example i would probably want a lens with this range.

For portraits on a crop body the 24-105 (38-168mm effective) is pretty much the perfect range. The IS although not as good as 15-85's is very useful and the constant F4 helps when balancing flash/ambient (when using f4 of course :).)

I plan to go fullframe eventually so i chose the 24-105 and use the 17-85 i already had if i need something wider (although the quality is not so good of course). The 24-105 will become my wide angle when i go full frame and a 70-200 will pick up the stuff above 105!
 
Cheers, i tend to stick to my crop until i win the euromilions, I've ordered the 15-85 this morning and looking forward to receive it mid week, i'll probably get a fast and sharp prime,
and i've been looking @ the charts on the-digital-picture.com and not many primes seem to be sharp untill u hit around f/2.8 and even than they're only sharp @ the centre.
 
lucky_13 said:
I guess the best way to find out is to pop into a store and try them both on my 550D but every store i went in they never had ether lens in stock!
I have been looking @ different forums on the same topic and i am amazed @ how many 7D users have sold they'r 24-105 in favour of the 15-85!
I guess tha speaks volumes with in itself.:shrug:
Click to expand...

All it tells you is that on a 1.6x crop sensor camera like the 7D (and your 550D for that matter) many people may well find the focal length, which is equivalent to a 38 to 168mm on a full frame/35mm film body, is a bit too long for walk-around lens purposes. It says nowt about the quality of the lens itself :thumbs:
 
Nifkin said:
All it tells you is that on a 1.6x crop sensor camera like the 7D (and your 550D for that matter) many people may well find the focal length, which is equivalent to a 38 to 168mm on a full frame/35mm film body, is a bit too long for walk-around lens purposes. It says nowt about the quality of the lens itself :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That is what I was talking about! No where in the comment above do I mention the quality of the lens! But thanks for ur input.
 
lucky_13 said:
That is what I was talking about! No where in the comment above do I mention the quality of the lens! But thanks for ur input.
Click to expand...

:suspect:

Bur your thread title is 24-105 vs 15-85 IQ and Sharpness, (and not 24-105 vs 15-85 usable range), so, yes, somewhere above you do mention quality. Here for example:

lucky_13 said:
The IQ and sharpness corner to corner is what's important.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Last edited:
Nifkin said:
All it tells you is that on a 1.6x crop sensor camera like the 7D (and your 550D for that matter) many people may well find the focal length, which is equivalent to a 38 to 168mm on a full frame/35mm film body, is a bit too long for walk-around lens purposes. It says nowt about the quality of the lens itself :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Really? :thinking: If I was going to lose IQ I would have kept the 24-105 and swapped with my 10-22 for wider shots. But I bought the 15-85 because I didn't lose any IQ and also didn't have to keep changing lenses for wider shots (I think the 10-22 has been used once since I got the 15-85). :shake:
 
But Neil... the 24-105 has a red ring on it so it must be better...

Have to say the only mildly annoying thing with the 15-85 is that it vignettes a bit wide open. Easily corrected in post though.
 
Jackwow said:
Really? :thinking: If I was going to lose IQ I would have kept the 24-105 and swapped with my 10-22 for wider shots. But I bought the 15-85 because I didn't lose any IQ and also didn't have to keep changing lenses for wider shots (I think the 10-22 has been used once since I got the 15-85). :shake:
Click to expand...

So basically, Jack, you're confirming my opinion when I said 'people may well find the focal length, which is equivalent to a 38 to 168mm on a full frame/35mm film body, is a bit too long for walk-around lens purposes', in that you traded your 24-105 for a 15-85, which meant you - in your own words - didn't lose on IQ but gained on usable range by not having to swap to a UWA lens to handle your wide angle shots? Nowhere did I make a comparison of the IQ of the two lenses being considered. I wouldn't know if there was any loss or gain of IQ switching between these two as I've never used the 15-85.
 
Last edited:
Jackwow said:
Really? :thinking: If I was going to lose IQ I would have kept the 24-105 and swapped with my 10-22 for wider shots. But I bought the 15-85 because I didn't lose any IQ and also didn't have to keep changing lenses for wider shots (I think the 10-22 has been used once since I got the 15-85). :shake:
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Nifkin said:
Nowehere did I make a comparison of the IQ of the two lenses being considered. I wouldn't know if there was any loss or gain of IQ switching between these two as I've never used the 15-85.
Click to expand...

Than why are u advising? As the title says IQ and sharpness between these lenses. As the whole purpose to this thread is to compare the IQ and Sharpness between the lenses.
 
Last edited:
lucky_13 said:
Than why are u advising? As the title says IQ and sharpness between these lenses. As the whole purpose to this thread is to compare the IQ and Sharpness between the lenses.
Click to expand...

Everything I'd read points towards very marginal differences in sharpness over the ranges/appatures both lenses share.

The big difference with the 24-105mm would be an extra 20mm at the tele end at f/4 rather than f/5.6, if you intend to use the lens for shooting moving subjects at that range or in poor light it would be an advanatge.

What do you shoot most often? personally I shoot mostly landscape and I went with the 15-85mm and the 10-22mm and have been very happy with that choice. It really does cut down on lens changes alot and its ment I take the 15-85mm out far more often when I just have the camera and one lens(which is most of the the time outside holidays) which has yelded some nice tele landscapes I'd not otherwise have gotten.
 
Nifkin said:
So basically, Jack, you're confirming my opinion when I said 'people may well find the focal length, which is equivalent to a 38 to 168mm on a full frame/35mm film body, is a bit too long for walk-around lens purposes', in that you traded your 24-105 for a 15-85, which meant you - in your own words - didn't lose on IQ but gained on usable range by not having to swap to a UWA lens to handle your wide angle shots? Nowhere did I make a comparison of the IQ of the two lenses being considered. I wouldn't know if there was any loss or gain of IQ switching between these two as I've never used the 15-85.
Click to expand...

Well the way your post read to me was that people only changed for the more usefull focal length and the IQ wasn't considered. Perhaps I read you wrong?
 
I have both lenses. The 15-85 is on my sons 600d as his perfect walkabout lens. The 24-105 is on my 50d for the majority of the time. Both of them are really good lenses, if I had to chose one I'd say the 24-105 just edges it in quality but you won't be disappointed in the 15-85. Great lens, light and a good performer.
 
Byker28i said:
I have both lenses. The 15-85 is on my sons 600d as his perfect walkabout lens. The 24-105 is on my 50d for the majority of the time. Both of them are really good lenses, if I had to chose one I'd say the 24-105 just edges it in quality but you won't be disappointed in the 15-85. Great lens, light and a good performer.
Click to expand...

Thank u for ur input, I'm just waiting to recive the lens now.
 
Jackwow said:
Or by the 7D in camera. :)
Click to expand...
It doesn't do it 100% corectly though. We still have the extreme edges vignetting wide open... And it doesn't apply to RAW files...
 
My 15-85 finaly arrived yesterday and I did give it a quick try on the camera and it is sharper than both copy's of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 I briefly owned, the AF is super fast and silent and so is the IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top