Replace or Augment EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6?

[EricPvpi]

What about using a flash indoors when the shutter speeds would be too slow otherwise?

Dave

I have started to use the flash indoors and that helps a bit, but as conropl mentions, I also thought the 17-55 would allow me to explore more on the on the shallow DOF. So really on the short end I was thinking about DOF, portraits, as well as the shutter speed issue. Flash helps with some, but wasn't sure if it would solve all of it.

A couple of points:

• I am not sure weather sealing should be part of the consideration since your 60D is not weather sealed that well. With my 7D and its weather sealing, I may rethink that (for my type of shooting), but that is not the case for the 60D because the camera is limiting.
• I do not think I would have the 17-55 and the 24-105. There is to much over lap, and between the two the 17-55 is the best lens for the croped body and the weather sealing (or lack of) better matches your 60D.
• The f/2.8 on the 17-55 would allow you to start exploring shallow DOF and opens up some good oppertunities for you.
• The 24-105 is better suited for FF if you plan on going that way in the very near future... then the 17-55 does not make a lot of sense.
• I would replace the 24-105 with a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro. This lens would open so many more possibilities for you and gives you a fast lens in the 100mm range, and it is really really sharp. I have the 25-105 and the 100 Macro, but if I had the 17-55 and no plans for FF, then the 25-105 would go. Also, the f/2.8 on the 100mm lets you futher explore shallow DOF (even more than the 17-55).

As I mentioned, the shallow DOF was another thing I wanted to explore more. I don't plan to go FF in the near term, so I wouldn't hesitate on the 17-55. I did like the thoughts of the L lenses since they let me go either way in the future.

I have the 17-55, and I think it is well worth the investment to have a bright fast lens as your walking around lens. I think you should consider making the 17-55 your wallking around lens, and maybe put off the mid-range 24-105 lens for a while if you need to do these purchases in increments. There is a ton of overlapping coverage there; only 56-69 is uncovered, new territory between your other two lenses. Or if you might even wish to pick up a longer lens (100-400?) instead of a mid-range lens.

I thought about the 17-55 as the walk around lens, but I wasn't sure if it would be enough range since I tend to use above 55 as well. I started to think about the 24-105 since I was liking the f/4 on the 70-200 but wished I had it under 70mm and where a flash wouldn't be effective. I was shooting the kids at an indoor pool where light wasn't bad but the 15-85 wasn't as good, where the 70-200 looked great. Right now I tend to carry both lenses so I was curious if the 25-105 would give a good range when I just want to carry 1 lens. Regarding overlap, there was more overlap if I kept the 17-55 and 15-85, so I was trying to think of a better mix. But certainly getting rid of the 15-85 and getting the 17-55 and deciding later is an option since it isn't a huge range I would be losing.

But I love all the comments to help my thought process. I guess I really want a 15-85 f2.8.

Thanks,
Eric