Printable View
Hi,
I've a decision to make and i need some advices, i need a general purpose lens, i now have a 7D with an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is usm.
Buy a EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is usm for around $900 or go for a EF 24-105 f/4 L is usm for $1200?
Anyone have shot with these 2 lenses? IQ of 24-105 really worth 300$ extra?
I would appreciate your opinion.
Ricky
Hey Ricky welcome to the forum,
have you also considered the 17-55 f2.8 is usm?
24 mm is a little on the long side on your body. For a general lens I would recommend either the 15-85 or the 17-55. Just depends on what your demands are.
Greetz Jan
I don't know about the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, but I use a 24-105 f/4 L on my 7D for mid-range shooting biased to the long side. The image quality is excellent.
That said, as Sheiky points out, you should consider the 17-55mm EF-S f/2.8. I use this more than the 24-105mm on my 7D as the range stretches nicely from quite wide to mid, and I find this to be my most useful general purpose zoom range. There is no significant difference in image quality between these lenses, if anything the 17-55mm is a little sharper towards the edges. Also, the wide f/2.8 aperture is always good to have.
Richard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Between those two I would pick the 15-85, because it has ultra wide angle, whereas the 24-105 is not very wide at all.
Ricky, I have an EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM and absolutely LOVE it on my 7D! It's an amazing walk-around lens, IQ is quite nice and build is GREAT. Zoom and focus rings are very smooth and sexy! Having said that... since I have a bunch of primes and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM, I'm thinking of actually selling the 24-105 and getting the 17-55 f/2.8 everyone is talking about. It's basically L-series. It's like $900-1000 and would probably be better for you... If you are dead-set on the 24-105, I'll sell you mine for an even grand! It's six-months old and not a scratch on it! Comes with front and rear caps, soft-pouch, lens hood... everything but the retail box (got rid of it).
- Jordan
www.freshphotohawaii.com
We're on the same boat...but i just recently purchased the 15-85 and I find it very very good.produces very goodIQ, just like what had been said in the review.the coverage is very good...decent wide to mid telephoto, very good built quality, very solid, nice size & weight. i'm sure you'll enjoy this on your 7D. on the other hand, having said all that i'm planning to get my first L lensand considering the 24-105 or the 24-70. as i have the 10-22, i think one of the two lensescan make a good combo with it and i can use the 15-85 also for a walk around lens.
Hi,
I've also considered the 17-55 but the range is too short
(for me), and for a little more i can get a 24-105, sure is an f/4 but
it has a great range despite not so wide, and all that come with L
series (weather sealed, construction....). I shoot most of the time
outdoors (yet) so f4 i think is enough, and the 7d can deliver good IQ
when pushing the ISO.
I'm searching a lens that can deliver good IQ since the 7D has a dense sensor.
Thanks to all for the comments!
Ricky
Alright, I thought since you have the 70-300 already, the range wouldn't be a problem.
You need to think of how wide you want a lens to be. 24mm on your camera is not really wide. 15 is really wide. It's a personal decision what you want...
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;" lang="EN-GB"]I just bought the 24-105 in addition to my ef-s 17-85 for the 50D. I have not had must time to shoot with it yet. Personally I find 24 to be wide enough. Sometimes I did the mistake with the 17-85 not the zoom in, and for me 17mm is a bit too wide. 24mm on a 50D works perfect for shooting the whole living room. But I would also like the new 15-85, just still have feelings for my old 17-85.
I'm not sure why so many people are shooting FF normal zoom on APS-C bodies. To me the range is just not right; 24mm is considered wide on a FF, but on a APS-C it's like a 40mm on a FF which is rather narrow, and to me does not qualify it as a general purpose zoom.
So to me, the 24-105mm is out. If you are considering the 15-85mm f3.5-5.6, you should also look at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 IS. It has a little smaller range, but the bigger aperture, and also a IS. The price is also somewhat lower. I havent seen any reviews, but they should be out soon (maybe also on this page).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj1575
That's a good point. I've still been searching for a general purpose lens for my 7d, so thanks for asking this question. Reading all this helps!
I know this lens would not be a great general purpose lens, but I recently shot with my friends 10-22m and it was great, esp since I was taking landscape shots.
As far as general purpose, I'm really leaning towards the 17-55mm. I do plan on renting it soon, so I'll let you know how I liked it,
Yeah, I think FF zooms on an APS-C body don't quite work. I had a 24-105 but sold it. I am thinking of the 17-55mm also. I HAD the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 before the IS version came out. It was a decent lens but certainly not on par with everything else mentioned here. Maybe the IS version is better in other ways, but if it's the SAME thing just with IS... then I definitely wouldn't get it if I were you.
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"]Why many people are shooting with a normal FF zoom. Simply because not everybody wants ultra wide and 24-105mm is equivalent to 38-168mm on a crop sensor, which is a very useful range for some people (many point & shoot cameras start at 35/38mm). I'm not saying it's wrong to want a wide lens; it's just not the answer to everything.<o:p></o:p>
Is the constant aperture important to you? If you're shooting much in low-light conditions, the 24-105 might be better since it will autofocus faster/more accurately in low-light, due to it's wider aperture at the long end.
Thanks to all for the replies, actually i'm using my 70-300 and most of the times i don't need any wider focal, so i think that for me 24mm is enough (yet), i need a walkaround lens that allow me to get sharp images and that is reliable.
Are 300$ more a good investment for a L lens such the 24-105? Does the build quality, weather sealing, zoom/focus ring construction, IQ worth $300?
Last but not least EF lenses are compatible with FF bodies.(I'm not considering to go FF yet but who knows!)
Thank you very much for the answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Yeah, in that case I think the 24-105 is an excellent choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj1575
It depends on the use. I've got the 24-105 on my 50D and I find the range perfect for vacation pics and outdoor family events.
For indoor events, it can be a little tight, so I just back up a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
For me, the money I spent on the 24-105 was worth it. Given the build quality, the useful range, and the outstanding IQ, I plan on keeping these lens for as long as it lasts. And I expect that to be a very long time, since I take good care of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyO
...which is fine, until your backing up backs you into a wall, and you still need wider framing. That's why I find the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ideal for most uses (the extra stop helps indoors, too!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
The 24-105/4 is a wonderful complement for the 7D. Cap off the front with a good filter to seal off the system. I no longer bother to bag the camera when coming in from the cold. The IQ, contrast and sharpness in particular, are in my opinion better than 17-55/2.8, but it does seem to depend which I looked at last. I own both. The 17-55 is my favorite for indoors and night scenes. The 24-105 is the walkaround lens the rest of time. I have a polarizer on it as often as not. I'm wondering now how much that influences my impression of color and contrast, not to mention the better light.
The zoom ring position is reversed compared to the 17-55 and somewhat smaller. I'm forever grabbing the focus ring by mistake the first few minutes on either when I switch. The 17-55 has a suitably big ring and easy to get your hand on when you want. The -105's, being in the rear, is already in hand by just cupping the camera body naturally and wrapping the thumb and finger around the lens.
The IS motor on the -105 is noticeably louder and clunkier sounding than the 17-55. IS on the 17-55 seems to be a bit more effective, maybe due to its shorter FL range, but more likely just due to the newer design.
I bought the 24-105 after being frustrated too often with the limited reach on the 17-55. The -105 is comfortably long, and I seldom bump its zoom limit.
The 15-85 IS got good ratings in its review here and is worth considering. Pairing it with a fast normal prime might be an answer. I didn't set out to own both the 17-55 and 24-105. I had wanted a no-compromise lens to pair with the 7D, and thought I could live with the jump from 55mm to 70mm. As it turned out, the -105 is a better match at any time I might want the 70-200, so much so that I haven't even mounted the -200 in quite some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWhy
A lot! If you can accept the loss of a couple of stops, which usually isn't a problem outdoors, a CPL will certainly enhance color and contrast significantly.