Decisions... Canon 24-105 or 15-85?

R

rob13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
184
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I have these 2 on my potential shopping list to replace my 17-85 on my 40D. I already have a 70-300mm which sorts out my Tele end, and I'm looking to buy a 10-22mm for Landscape work however for my general walkabout, I want something sharper than what I already have.

I have seen a mate's 24-105 perform on a 40d and it actually seems to provide a slightly different colour casting to my 17-85 (and should I say preferable).

This is shooting in RAW and looking at them side by side.

The 15-85mm really appeals as it is cheaper, is being compared to by many as optically close to the 24-105mm and has the wider end for a crop body.

Is the 15-85mm a considerable upgrade over the 17-85mm, and will it provide a different colour cast to the 24-105mm simply because its not an L lens?
 
I have the same dilemma wishing to replace mny Sigma 17-70mm. I bought my first L this year and am hooked!. The wider end of the 15mm was my deciding factor (although I have yet to actually buy the 15-85mm) and I am considering p-exing my Siggy 10-20mm as well to have just the one alrounder. Weight is another factor, with the 15-85mm being considerablty lighter than the 24-105mm.
 
I have been really pleased with the 15-85. What attracted me to it was that bit extra at the wide angle end and nothing in the L range covered what I was looking for. It's a huge step up from the standard kit lenses that I had before and although I have not had any other quality lenses in this range it compares very well against my 70-200 F4L for image quality.
I have found it an ideal walk around lens and it balances niceley on my 50d.
 
It depends how important the wide end is to you.
Don't forget that on 1.6 cropped sensor a 24-105 = 38 - 168.
Personally if I need to go wide, it's for landscapes so my 10-22 fits the bill.
I really like my 24-105, it's a cracking lens nice and sharp and I wouldn't be without it.
 
As has been said, it depends on how important the wide end is to you. Personally I couldn't live with a standard zoom starting at 24mm on APS-C.

Have you thought about a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? A very compact and light lens, very sharp and capable of excellent results.
 
woof woof said:
As has been said, it depends on how important the wide end is to you. Personally I couldn't live with a standard zoom starting at 24mm on APS-C.

Have you thought about a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? A very compact and light lens, very sharp and capable of excellent results.
Click to expand...

Or the 17-55mm f2.8 IS EF-S lens which is ideal as a walkaround lens on a cropped body.

Personally think the UWA lenses like the 10-22mm have very limited use, especially for the outlay, mine rarely comes out of the box any more, a quirky lens, prefer cityscapes to landscapes with it, I find it difficult to get the best from it because of the fisheye effect and the Tok 11-16mm f2.8 a better lens

I would personally go for the canon 17-55mm, fantastic lens.
 
I disagree with Pete - I find the Canon 10-22 surprisingly versatile, at 22mm it is a very nice walkabout lens! 22mm on a crop isnt too far off the standard 35mm on a film body / FF (35.2mm to be precise!!). This is the big advantage over the lesser Tokina - lesser because it is so restricted in focal length they may as well have just made it a prime, you are stuck with a UWA focal length even zoomed right in effectively - and people forget how useful 22mm is on a UWA Lens.

UWA's at 10mm are a hard breed to master, but there is a very good Ken Rockwell tutorial on the web which improved my use of this lens to no end

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

Out of the two (17-55 and 15-85) there is very little in it IQ WISe... I'd personally go for the 15-85 as a walkabout as it gives you slightly more flexibility than the 17-55 and I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference in IQ between the two.
 
I definitely wouldn't class the 10-22 as a walkaround lens, but each to their own, and as for the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm, I would always pick the faster lens, just more versitile, especially for indoor shots
 
Robfb said:
I have been really pleased with the 15-85. What attracted me to it was that bit extra at the wide angle end and nothing in the L range covered what I was looking for. It's a huge step up from the standard kit lenses that I had before and although I have not had any other quality lenses in this range it compares very well against my 70-200 F4L for image quality.
I have found it an ideal walk around lens and it balances niceley on my 50d.
Click to expand...
:plusone: (agree with everything Robfb says)

I love my 15 - 85, the 15 really helps get that little bit extra into the shot.

The colours are great and the results are very pleasing...

It is a significant step up from the 17-85

Quite a few examples on my flickr and in the 15-85 group as well

Cheers
 
mipevo6 said:
:plusone: (agree with everything Robfb says)

I love my 15 - 85, the 15 really helps get that little bit extra into the shot.

The colours are great and the results are very pleasing...

It is a significant step up from the 17-85

Quite a few examples on my flickr and in the 15-85 group as well

Cheers
Click to expand...


:plusone:

Yep love this lens! Cant comment on the 24-105 but the 15-85 is a beaut!!!
 
pete.rush said:
I definitely wouldn't class the 10-22 as a walkaround lens, but each to their own, and as for the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm, I would always pick the faster lens, just more versitile, especially for indoor shots
Click to expand...

I owned a Canon EFs 17-55mm F2.8 and found that I usually needed the flash to freeze any action indoors as F2.8 was not enough on it's own. Perhaps that is partly due to the 400D not having great performance at high ISO settings. Apart from that it was a delight to use, the image quality was just spectacular (as good as the EF 24-70mm L I believe), incredibly sharp throughout the focal range. If you've got the money, go for it.

If money is an issue, it would seem the 15-85mm is a great alternative and I may consider getting one myself in the coming year.
 
I've just got the 24-105 last week, decided to upgrade the 18-55 kit lens on my 500d.
So far I've been delighted with it, pin sharp and a big improvement over the kit lens.

I figured 24mm would be wide enough for most situations and i also find that the extra reach is useful and saves me switching to my 70-300 so much.
At some point in the future I'll add a wide angle lens for landscapes.
 
If you read the thread i posted today then i think i know which way i would jump.

15-85 if you want one lens
24-105 if you also wish to buy the 17-40 as you will in the end.
 
Well I intend to get the 10-22mm before I head off to NZ in November. Just because the 15-85 overlaps though, I dont see it as an issue as if I'm just going out light, then I only need to take the 1 lens.

Now just to find a used one! I've seen that Camerabox and Kerso both have them around £475. I've seen one on here go for about £350 although that might have be an anomaly!
 
rob13 said:
Well I intend to get the 10-22mm before I head off to NZ in November. Just because the 15-85 overlaps though, I dont see it as an issue as if I'm just going out light, then I only need to take the 1 lens.

Now just to find a used one! I've seen that Camerabox and Kerso both have them around £475. I've seen one on here go for about £350 although that might have be an anomaly!
Click to expand...

If Ian is doing the 10-22 for £475 I wouldn't hesitate in buying a new one.
I bought mine in Feb last year and I paid £500 new just before the prices went ballistic.
£350 is very cheap for a used 10-22.
Bear in mind the this lens is an ultra wide angle, so it is a lot wider than a standard zoom lens.
 
hashcake said:
If Ian is doing the 10-22 for £475 I wouldn't hesitate in buying a new one.
I bought mine in Feb last year and I paid £500 new just before the prices went ballistic.
£350 is very cheap for a used 10-22.
Bear in mind the this lens is an ultra wide angle, so it is a lot wider than a standard zoom lens.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant the 15-85. I think I'll go for the new walkabout before I go for the UWA.
 
I have had the 24-105 for ages; bought it as a walkabout and love it for MOST things I'd meet on an average days trip out, but it just isn't fast enough for gigs, so I for that, I bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Now I find I use it for just about everything! It's light if carrying all day and sharp. OK so auto-focus isn't all that quick but as I'm not shooting sport or wildlife, it doesn't matter. So my advice would be..... hire both for a week and see which you prefer! Cheaper in the long run than spending a lot of money on something you later regret.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top