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?