First Post. Looking for advice on a general purpose zoom.

[PatrickH]

Hi All,


I

[Daniel Browning]

The L features and constant f/4 of the 24-105 are nice, but personally I would prefer the focal length range of the 15-85.


Think of it this way. If you had a full frame camera, would you prefer a 24-105mm f/4, or a 40-170mm f/4? If you would like 24-105 on full frame, get the 15-85 for crop. If you prefer a 40-170 on full frame (even though Canon doesn

[thekingb]

Hi Patrick,


+1 to Daniel's point. Think hard about your style.


Personally, I don't love changing lenses frequently in the field because it just doesn't seem that practical (or maybe I am lazy []). So if I had the 10-22 and the 15-85, knowing me the 10-22 probably wouldn't get much use except when I knew a dramatic vista awaited me. It would be too easy to stick with the 15-85 because of its versatility over the 10-22. That, plus the fact that Igravitate towards the long end of focal lengths (except in places like Yellowstone), l'd go for the 24-105. But that's just me!


Have you ever searched the EXIF data in your photo library for your kit lens to get a sense of your sweet spot focal lengths? I recently did that for shots with my Tamron 17-50, and I wasn't surprised to learn that the vast majority are at >24mm.


Good luck!

[Jordan]

I think that the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS would be nice.. I had the non-OS version. The one problem is lack of constant aperture, in which case I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the way to go. I had one of those for quite a while and loved it! I know it

[clemmb]

Have you ever searched the EXIF data in your photo library for your kit lens to get a sense of your sweet spot focal lengths?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I agree. Check this out. As Daniel said, each one of us has different styles and preferences. When I was shooting APS-C I still found myself shooting at the long end of the lenses and found my 17-50 was too short so I upgraded to the 24-105 and loved it. Once in a while I found the 24 not quite wide enough but for me that was rare. Now on full frame it is perfect for me. The 24-105 may be good for you since you are planning on the 10-22 as well.


Mark

[Dr Croubie]

I know i should add a vote for the 15-85 (because i've got one on my 7d, and love it), but i'm not so sure if you've got (getting) the 10-22.


For me, it would come down to preference of swapping lenses in the field. with the 15-85 you get a decent range, you can drop down to 15 without having to put on your 10-22, until you want an ultra-wide or want a better shot without the vignetting/barrelling of the 15-85. If you get the 24-105, you're pretty much stuck changing to the 10-22 every time you see a nice landscape.


Same goes at the long end. with the 15-85 you can get up to 85 if you see a nice bird in the tree before it flies away, but the 24-105 gets just that little bit closer (the amount of times i've lost a good bird shot in the time it takes to swap to my 70-300...). Sure, 85 and 105 are neither that good for bird shots, but you might have a better chance of something remotely croppable with the 24-105.


And you also have to think about your significant other (or other travelling companions). Composing, focussing, setting CPL, checking dof and flare all takes enough time, without swapping lenses on top (constantly calling out 'keep smiling honey, i'm nearly about to take it, oh hang on, maybe i'll try my _other_ lens...')





so my 2c? personally i'd take the 15-85 and 70-300 and just forego the 10-14 range (and yes, i have this setup. it's also cheaper. my shop has 15-85 for &euro;680, 24-105 for &euro;1050, 10-22 for &euro;740).


if you're going to get the 10-22 like you say, i'd lean a bit more to the 24-105. keep it on the whole time for fast-response close-ish animal and people shots, if you see a nice panorama when you get to the top of the hill you can take your time to swap to the 10-22. if you see a distant animal or bird in a tree you'd have to swap to 70-300 anyway so anything past 105mm is a moot point anyway...





another question is weight, if you're going to jellystone you're going to be hiking a lot i presume. my back hurts enough after lugging my 7d, 15-85, 70-300 nonL (soon to buy L) with water, food, spare jacket etc for a few hours. the 24-105 is 670g, the 15-85 is 575g, the 10-22 is only 385g. By all means don't let this discourage you from the dual 10-22+24-105 setup, but with the 15-85 you can carry an extra bottle of water along too. (if you're just a birdwatcher and sweeping panorama person, take the 10-22 and 70-300? to spare the extra weight?)





as for the 17-55, and 24-70 (if you can afford it). i'd only bother with them if the f2.8 is really important to you (which it probably isn't with landscapes and hiking). i chose the 15-85 over the 17-55 for the extra 2mm wider and 30mm longer, the IS helps enough to overcome the slowness of the 15-85. (and for landscapes, who wants f2.8 anyway?)

[Fast Glass]

For low light landscapes, or if the scene has moving elements in it and you don