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
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).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote