Printable View
Hi there,
Am thinking of buying a general walkabout lens for my EOS 600d - Two main choices really, for me: the Canon EF-S 15-85mm or the L 24-105mm.
Optically which of these lenses is superior? Which delivers 'better images? and Which one is least likely to be replaced in the future? ( Is the 'L' lens worth the money for extra quality)? - Am not sure what the relative wide-angle difference between the two lenses would be in real terms.
Many thanks for your help!!
The 15-85mm would be a better choice, or if you want/need a faster aperture, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Both deliver L-series optical quality, both perform slightly better than the 24-105mm on a crop body.
In fact, 24mm on APS-C is not even wide angle - it's 38mm FF-equivalent, meaning in the normal range. The 24-105 has better build, including weather sealing (but you'd need a sealed body, e.g. 7D, to benefit from that).
For a crop body, I think the 17-55mm is the best general purpose lens - indoors and out, landscapes and even portraits (f/2.8). The 15-85mm is a great outdoor walkaround lens, but will likely need a flash indoors.
I have a 600d/T3i and completely agree w/ Neuronatomist. I bought the 15-85 first and find it just the little bit too slow for indoor work. Fantastic outdoor, but really miss the 2.8 light gathering ability.
I went through the 18-55 & 55-250 combo, found that I wanted to change lenses too often, that is why I went to the 15-85 to get that extra length. Now I am wishing I had gone to the 17-55 for the 2.8. At f4 both are really sharp (look at the ISO crops in the reveiw section) in the wide side. The variable f stop closes down pretty darn fast, so you lose the extra stop or two pretty quickly.
I have been fiddling w/ the video side of the 600 and hee hee hee it is alot of fun. I wish I had the 2.8 for the indoor video where flash is n/a and light is just silly looking. I am looking at the 16-35 L for "indoor" work, and keep the 15-85 for outdoor.
Happy clicks
Mike
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is my go-to lens probably 85% of the time. It truly is the best general purpose lens out there for a crop body.
I went with the 24-105mm f/4L, for the extra reach, and I regret it. It's as people say, the 24mm isn't wide enough for indoor use. f/4 isn't fast enough for indoor use (and anything over f/2.8 lowers autofocus precision).
If you're considering the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, but are on a tight budget, then also consider the Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 (non VC version). It gets plenty rave reviews too. Not quite as good as the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, but it's half the price. In fact, with the savings, you can easily get a nice fast prime like the 85mm f/1.8 to help cover the lost focal length, or a flash to help with indoors.
If you do find yourself bumping up against the 55mm boundary all the time with your kit lens, then the 15-85mm may be the better option for you. If you go this route, and you don't know why people suggest fast primes, then add a 50mm f/1.8 onto your order. It's like $100, and it will open up new areas in low-light and thin depth of field photography for you. If you don't need convincing about that a fast prime is a good investment, or you're willing to believe strangers on the internet, then you might want to skip that lens, and invest in a higher quality prime, like the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8 at some point. The 50mm 1/f.8 is a nice lens, and we still use ours, but it's build quality isn't the best.
I've got the 15-85mm and I wish I had an extra stop or two indoors.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I own the 17-55. Naturally I'm extremely pleased with it and recommended it to anyone who is in the market.