Its about that time of year again, taxes are coming back! Anyone getting any goodies?

I shoot with a T3i and I'm debating between getting the 15-85mm or the 24-105mm. The price between them isn't a deciding factor, but I am more looking toward the one I will benefit using more.

I am leaning more towards the 24-105 mostly because of the extra reach on the long end and the constant aperture. That, and I have the wide end covered pretty well with my Tokina 11-16mm. The fact that I'd have to switch lenses to get that wider angle doesnt seem like that big of a deal to me, since when I shoot wide, I feel like its planned, such as at a local rock show, or a stationary shot, such as a landscape. I can't recall ever coming across something where I have thought "Wow, I need a wide angle, RIGHT NOW" Also, if I ever decide to upgrade to, or purchase a non APS-C body, I get to keep that lens for that body as well.

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards the 24-105. I guess my questions are, will I really miss that 6mm from 17-23? And do I benefit in any way by using the 15-85mm over the 24-105, is there anything it does better? Areas it performs better in?




That brings me on to my second question. I also really want the Canon 100-400mm, as I tend to do a lot of wildlife and nature photography. The big question is, do I purchase this lens first in place of the 15-85/24-105 and effectively increase my range between my lenses from 11-250mm (minus that pesky 17th mm) to 11-400mm, or do I purchase a lens that will increase image quality over my already established range?

As it stands right now, I am favoring the 24-105 out of the two, but leaning more towards purchasing the 100-400mm first out of the two.
Questions for me? Suggestions? Any input? Much appreciated.





Now that that is out of the way, is anyone else treating themselves with their tax money?

David,

What is your "normal" lens today? I think the 24-105L is a really good lens, but I think you may miss the 15-23mm range. It depends on your shooting style though.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

David,

What is your "normal" lens today? I think the 24-105L is a really good lens, but I think you may miss the 15-23mm range. It depends on your shooting style though.

Dave

---

I currently have-
Tokina 11-16mm
Canon 18-55mm
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 55-250mm
Canon 100mm Macro

I mostly switch between the kit lens and the 55-250mm, depending on the situation, but I find that the 55-250 is on more simply because I do a lot of out doors stuff.

I just got the Tokina but plan on using it a lot for local show for friends of mine's bands. It's my wide lens, so I will be experimenting with that a bit, using it in various situations to see what I can do with it.

The 50mm sees a lot of use at shows as well, especially if I can't use the flash. If I am at a party or an event where I don't want to be changing lenses constantly, thats usually the lens I have on.

The Macro, well, that gets used for Macro and thats about it, I havent used it in any other way too much yet.

If you don't use the 100mm besides macro what makes you think that the 105mm end is so usefull on a standard lens?

John.

For me, I have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens for my ultra-wide shots and for my "walk around" lens I use the 24-105L and love it. It is pretty versatile, 24mm is useful for those landscape shots that 22 or less is just too wide and the 105 is great for zooming in on a sunset or another object.

I'm waiting for all of our documents to come in to see what we will be getting back for $. I'm looking at either getting a NAS for backup (we already backup data to an external drive and bluray discs [copy kept at home and at work]) or possibly the Canon 70-300L lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FastGass

If you don't use the 100mm besides macro what makes you think that the 105mm end is so usefull on a standard lens?

John.

---

I use 100mm (or right in that ballpark at least) quite often, I just do it with my 55-250 instead of changing lenses.

I doubt I will be getting any money back this year... but if somehow that happens. I will be going Sigma 35 1.4 all the way.

Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Johnston

I doubt I will be getting any money back this year... but if somehow that happens. I will be going Sigma 35 1.4 all the way.

Dave.

---

A friend of mine just got one and he absolutely loves it, hopefully you can get it!
Lots of Dave's in this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidWare

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards the 24-105. I guess my questions are, will I really miss that 6mm from 17-23? And do I benefit in any way by using the 15-85mm over the 24-105, is there anything it does better? Areas it performs better in?

---

Hi, I debated a similar question a few years ago, but in my case it was 24-105 vs. 17-55/2.8 (there was no EF-S 15-85 at the time). I ended up with the 24-105 primarily because I wanted the long end.

Later I added EF-S 10-22 and was very happy with the 10-22 / 24-105 combo for years. I’m sure you would also like the 24-105 paired with your Tokina. But…it’s kind of a hassle always having to bring an extra lens. If I had known what I know today, and if the 15-85 had been available at the time, I may have chosen the 15-85 over the 24-105. (I’m not sure because I really don’t like a varying maximum aperture design.)

As I see it the optical performance (IQ) isn’t the differentiator between these lenses - both are very good. The 24-105 has an obvious advantage if you would get a FF body some day, but considering the camera you have today I would compare them like this:

EF 24-105: Constant f/4 through the entire range may not be the fastest but is fair enough. It has some more reach, but the extra reach isn’t enough for outweighing the poor wide angle. (15-85 mm is a much more versatile range.) Paired with a wide angle zoom the 24-105 works nicely, but then there will be lots of lens swapping. (And to be able to do that you always have to bring an extra lens.) The EF 24-105 is a really solid high quality lens - it feels great to use.

EF-S 15-85: It has a perfect normal zoom range but the f/3.5-5.6 thing is annoying. If you don’t have a problem with the varying maximum aperture it’s the natural choice. Of course it depends on your shooting style, but I would personally find it difficult not to have the range 17-23 covered. For me that's a quite common focal length range (on my 7D) and the versatile EF-S 15-85 covers it.

Good luck with a tough decision…

David,

Tough call. There are several here on the forum shooting a cropped sensor body with the 24-105 + an ultra wide and several also with the EFS 15-85. I've seen great shots from both combinations. I have the EFS 15-85 and EFS 10-22. I can tell you I use the 15-24 range a significant amount and thought I'd use the 10-15 range, but have found that I use it much less frequently. So I agree with others, I think you would miss 17-23 range. As for reach, I've never really missed "longer" on the EFS 15-85. The way I shoot I tend to want (on a cropped sensor) the 15-85 mm range or 200-400 mm (mostly 400 mm). Granted, if I had 86-105 mm, I'd probably use it.

Second tough call, upgrading your general purpose lens vs going to the EF 100-400L. On one hand you already have a general purpose lens and you don't have anything from 250-400 mm. I would tend to lean toward the 100-400L. But if you currently do not feel limited by 250 mm, and shoot the majority of your shots in the general purpose range, then I'd upgrade your general purpose lens.

Really, I subscribe to the philosophy of use your current gear until you find a need and then address that need. If you have multiple needs, address the one that is most glaring.

Good luck,
Brant