24-105mm f/4 L IS on a crop camera

[!Xabbu]

I finally upgraded from my trustworthy 450D to a 60D. Now my wife suggested that she would use my 450D going forward. I guess we will have quite a few situations where we both will want a general purpose lens on our camera.

I still have the 450D 18-55mm kit lens, but don't really want to give that to my wife (IQ is just too bad). So, I was thinking about getting a second general purpose lens (I currently use Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 non-IS).

It seems like the 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be a significant step up from my Tamron in IQ. Does anyone use it on a crop sensor camera as walk around lens and can tell me what their experience with it is? Did anyone own both the Tamron 17-50mm and the 24-105mm and can confirm that the difference in IQ is worth the "high" price of the 24-105mm?
I was going out today with my Tamron and was only shooting 24mm and longer and wasn't feeling like this restricted me a lot. I would still have my Tokina 11-16mm for super-wide angle shots and the 70-200mm to complement on the long end.

[FlowerPhotog]

I just upgraded from a t2i to a 5D Mark III with the 24-105 Kit Lens.  On my t2i I have been using the EF-S 15-85, as my main walk around lens.  I've been very happy with it,  it has good IQ and very good 4 stop IS.  It's also a solidly built lens, a vast improvement over the 18-55 kit than comes with the Rebels.   Since getting the 5D Mark III I've been doing a bunch of lens comparison tests, including putting the 24-105 on the t2i and comparing the same scenes with both it and the 15-85 set to the same focal length and aperture (tripod mount, self timer etc).   I don't see much if any differences.  At the longer focal lengths, if anything the 15-85 is a smidgen sharper at the edges.  At the widest focal lengths the 24-105 might edge out the 15-85 on the margins,  but overall it's a wash.   If you don't have any plans to upgrade to a FF in the future, might consider the 15-85 over the Tamron, as it will give you a wider focal length range in one lens.  I think the list price of the 15-85 is about $350 to $400 less than the 24-105. 

[neuroanatomist]

For similar cost, I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the 24-105L for general use on a crop body, mostly for the faster aperture. If you are shooting mostly outdoors in good light, consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - both that and the 17-55mm deliver optical quality equivalent to the 24-105L (actually, very slightly better) and give you a wide angle of view on APS-C. 

Side note - I wouldn't buy a new 24-105mm separately at retail, they cost over $300 less as a kit lens. You can get them new as 'white box' versions.

[spinworkxroy]

I was using the 25-105 on my 60D for almost a year and it was a great walkabout lens…walkabout meaning you don't need wide lenses for landscapes etc..I too had a Tokina 11-16 for that which i use all the time if i needed to take landscapes.
The 24-105 was purely a walkabout lens for me.
In the event you go FF in the future, you will know that the 24-105 will also work great on it..
In fact, the 24-105 actually "transforms" into a different lens for me when i switched to the 5D3…it because an even better walkabout lens with a wide capability…although losing out on the tele range, it will depend on how often you need a tele range.
So for me, the 24-105 works well on both my 60 and 5D and i still constantly use it on both my cameras… the moment the 24-105 is NOT on my 5D, it will be on my 60D...

[RC]

I think the 24-105 in conjunction with your 11-16 (or a 10-22) is a very good combination for a crop body.   I'm assuming your wife will have the 17-50 on the 450D leaving you with the 60D.  Adding a 24-105 seems like your best option base on your comments--and that is probably exactly what I would do.

Although it is not my most used lens, I do have a 24-105 for my 7D.  Never shot with a 17-50 (or 17-55), but I did have a 15-85.  My walk around combination is 16-35 and 24-105. 

The 24-105 has excellent IQ, nice balance and handling, and seems to be one of the best value L lens.  Maybe rent one for a day and if you and your wife end up fighting over the 17-50, pick up a 17-55 or 15-85.

[elflord]

It seems like the 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be a significant step up from my Tamron in IQ. Does anyone use it on a crop sensor camera as walk around lens and can tell me what their experience with it is? Did anyone own both the Tamron 17-50mm and the 24-105mm and can confirm that the difference in IQ is worth the "high" price of the 24-105mm?

The photozone reviews appear to disconfirm it --

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

The tamron has less much less distortion at 24mm, consistently stellar performance at f/4, and an extra stop. The only reason to get the 24-105 would be for the extra telephoto reach and/or weather sealing (but the latter is not of much use unless the bodies are also weather sealed)

For a wider zoom range, I'd recommend the 15-85 over the 24-105 because the extra range at the wide end is very useful for this kind of lens.

[briansquibb]

I use the 24-105 on my 7D.

I am not into wa for a walkabout lens but find the extra reach very useful.

[pwp]

If you never plan to go to FF, then why go past the stellar EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ?
If you see a FF future, the 24-105 f/4is will not disappoint on any body.

But I'm a believer in getting glass to suit the camera you have now. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very satisfying lens.

Paul Wright

[D.Sim]

I use the 24-105 as a main lens on my 50D, and I love it.
If you wish to go FF in the future, its definitely a great investment. If you're going to stay on the crop body though, like the others have pointed out, there are several made-for-crop lenses that are cheaper.

[dswatson83]

I use it on a 60D. It is definitely a great lens but I would make sure you have a 50mm f/1.4 first. The 24-105 is great but at f/4 it is a bit slow. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens to go with this because it is so small it can basically fit in your pocket and if you are in low light to blur the background more, it works way better than the 24-105. The 50mm at f/2.8 is also sharper than the 24-105 at f/4! I love having the range and the IS of the 24-105, and with the 50mm in my pocket as well, I am ready for every situation.

[cliffwang]

Do you need 17-24 range?  If 17-24mm is important for you, you consider Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 17-55mm, or Canon 15-85mm.  I don't have 24-105mm.  However, I love my 17-55mm more than my 24-70mm on APS-C.

[jdramirez]

I have a 60D, 24-105, and 50mm f/1.4 in my arsenal at present.  I've had the 24-105 since Christmas and I like it... but I haven't fallen in love with it yet.  I've taken some incredibly sharp photos with the camera and lens tripod mounted and I've taken some nice shots while walking around with the IS engaged.  But I'm not astonished with it yet which is disappointing.  Maybe I have a less than perfect copy of it, but I'm not quite willing to admit that is the case. 

Granted, it has been a very gray winter and spring... so I will be taking more photos here in the near future of flowers, and softball, and I am guessing that since my subject will be more interesting, so will my photos.

[!Xabbu]

Thanks for all the good advice.

I will definitely have a look at the 15-85mm. I just have two concerns about it. I'm seeing myself possibly with a FF camera down the road and then the 15-85mm would be useless. The other thing is that f/5.6 is really slow. Do I still get a nice OOF blur at 85mm?
However, the IS and the very good price are enticing.

The 17-55mm is not an option, because that would really just be the same lens as my Tamron (maybe with slightly better IQ).

[elflord]

Thanks for all the good advice.

I will definitely have a look at the 15-85mm. I just have two concerns about it. I'm seeing myself possibly with a FF camera down the road and then the 15-85mm would be useless. The other thing is that f/5.6 is really slow. Do I still get a nice OOF blur at 85mm?

You can test this yourself by setting the focal length and aperture on your 70-200mm. Basically you are correct -- it's a very slow lens, and it will be very difficult to get shallow depth of field, even at the tele end. It does do very well on resale  (I sold mine because it was too slow for me), so no big loss if you had to sell it.  If you care about shallow dof in your zoom lens, you are better off with the Tamron that you already have.

[briansquibb]

If you never plan to go to FF, then why go past the stellar EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ?

- for the extra reach to do portraits