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

[prestonpalmer]

The 24-105 is a great lens on a crop body.  You will not be disappointed.  We use it on the 7D's here all the time.

[plutonium10]

I can vouch for the optical quality of the 15-85. I am a pixel peeper and this lens is quite sharp even in the corners if you leave it at 5.6 throughout the range (my copy anyway). 15mm makes a big difference from 18mm. Focusing is quick and build quality is good but not stellar. Lens feels solid, focus ring is small but smooth as L and zoom ring feels good but features annoying gravity zooming between 24 and 60mm if you are shooting almost straight up or down.

[Marsu42]

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)

Concerning sealing, I sadly have to comment you're mistaken - while the system is not sealed, at least the lens is. The aperture on my 100 non-L non-sealed macro has broken down twice now due to (imho regular) outdoor use, and I've decided only to get sealed lenses in the future even with my 60d. The dust and moisture resistance is just better, and the ef-s lenses afaik are as sealed as my macro lens: not at all. But if you only shoot indoors that's not a problem of course.

[wickidwombat]

personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
not that the 17-55 is bad or anything but the 24-105 is a really nice versitle lens and the 10-22 is pretty good for when you need to go really wide

[RC]

personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
not that the 17-55 is bad or anything but the 24-105 is a really nice versitle lens and the 10-22 is pretty good for when you need to go really wide

Dido.  I came very close going this route when I sold my 15-85.  But because one of the reasons I decided to sell it was for a weather sealing, I went with the 16-35 and 24-105.  I'll have to hold off on ultra wide shooting until I get a FF body.

[wickidwombat]

personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
not that the 17-55 is bad or anything but the 24-105 is a really nice versitle lens and the 10-22 is pretty good for when you need to go really wide

Dido.  I came very close going this route when I sold my 15-85.  But because one of the reasons I decided to sell it was for a weather sealing, I went with the 16-35 and 24-105.  I'll have to hold off on ultra wide shooting until I get a FF body.

you can always look at the 11-16 f2.8 tokina which is supposed to be pretty good

[Act444]

I use 24-105 as a walkaround on the 60D. Great range, but most importantly, it's constant aperture (I don't like variable aperture general zoom lenses) and it has weather sealing, also unlike the consumer zooms. Not to mention I think it's a better long-term investment as well. I don't think the 15-85 was out yet at the time I got mine, but if I had to choose between the two I would get the 24-105 again because of the above mentioned benefits. I find I use the long end much more frequently than the wide end, anyway- and the only time I find 24mm too long is in crowded indoor spaces. But I have the 17-55 for that.

I guess it depends on one's needs though. Photographers who do more landscape work may prefer the wide 15mm end of the 15-85. I happen to prefer the extra reach I get on the 85-105mm end and it's not often I wish I had something wider while walking about, but that's just my personal style.

[AJ]

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?

My suggestion is to choose a format and commit to it.  Don't get caught halfway in-between trying to hedge your bets.

You just bought a 60D.  So get the 15-85 now.  You'll get lots of mileage out of it.  You'll get your money's worth.  In a few years you can re-evaluate and think about selling.  Buying lenses is not like marriage, it's not a forever commitment.

Or else, bring back that 60D to the store and get a 5D with 24-105 kit lens now.

As for shallow dof with a standard zoom on a crop camera: neither the 17-50 nor the 15-85 will produce much selective focus except at close focusing distances (headshots and closer).   So that's not really a consideration.  If you want selective focus then you need a fast prime (e.g. 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 ).  The reason for a f/2.8 zoom on crop is light-gathering capability.  f/2.8 zooms are the way to go if you're shooting indoors a lot (with or without flash).

[briansquibb]

You just bought a 60D.  So get the 15-85 now.  You'll get lots of mileage out of it.  You'll get your money's worth.  In a few years you can re-evaluate and think about selling.  Buying lenses is not like marriage, it's not a forever commitment.

There are good reasons why the OP should get the 24-105, little things like f/4 through the range and weatherproofing and probably better IQ to boot. If the OP wants more reach then that is a good option, if the OP wants very wide then the 15-85 is good.

Personally I would suggest the 10-22 and the 24-105 would make a very good pairing - both used.

Used 24-105 are plentiful and reasonable cheap

[papa-razzi]

I have both the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the EF 24-105 f/4 with a 7D

For indoors, I will put on the 17-55.  It is a bit wider, and one stop faster.  Most often I can get away without using a flash.  Plenty wide enough as well.

For outdoors / walk-around, I use the 24-105.  On the wide end I am never constrained (easy enough to take a step back if needed), and the longer reach is preferred for me.

Like Nero I would first recommend the 17-55, however, since you have the tammy in a similar range, I would definitely go with the 24-105L

Although the 15-85 is a very sharp and well made lens, I do not recommend it for a few reasons.
- Inside it is not very fast - unless you don't mind using a flash all the time (I had a friend that sold his after trying my 17-55 at an indoor event)
- outside I would rather have the reach on the long end vs a bit wider, and weather sealing.
- As you mentioned, an EF format lens will carry over to FF if you go that way

[briansquibb]

It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.

Which is why of course the 24-105 is a favourite for wedding photographers

[AJ]

Yes 24-105 paired with an ultrawide (10-22) makes a great combo.  But in that case the OP is also investing in an EF-S lens, so upgrade thing does not go away.

I suppose it comes down to shooting preference.  When I first switched to digital I had a 28-300 mm zoom (and a 20 mm prime).  Having only 28 mm at the short end of the zoom drove me nuts.  24 mm is slightly better but it's no comparison to 15 mm.

In all, the 15-85 is the crop version of the 24-105.  So if the OP is looking for a one-lens solution with very little compromise in the optics, then 15-85 is a good choice.  10-22 plus 24-105 is a good two lens solution, with wider range and slightly faster at the long end.  But 24-105 on its own would not work well for my style of walk-around shooting.

[Marsu42]

It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.

Answer: the af works at open aperture, and at lower light this could very well make a difference and produce less out of focus shots.

The af advantage is actually the only thing I can think of why I'd want to get a 70-200/2.8 over my 70-300L, the 60d's af has problems in bad light and of course raising iso doesn't help the af. Though I can think of very few shots where the dof of f2.8 would be adequate at tele range for the actual shot.

[briansquibb]

It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.

Answer: the af works at open aperture, and at lower light this could very well make a difference and produce less out of focus shots.

The af advantage is actually the only thing I can think of why I'd want to get a 70-200/2.8 over my 70-300L, the 60d's af has problems in bad light and of course raising iso doesn't help the af. Though I can think of very few shots where the dof of f2.8 would be adequate at tele range for the actual shot.

If the light is so low that the AF is being affected I would think the 60D would be struggling anyway

[preppyak]

So if the OP is looking for a one-lens solution with very little compromise in the optics, then 15-85 is a good choice.

Yeah, this would work if you want to give your wife one lens and let her use it without borrowing any of your gear. Otherwise, the compromises it makes (EF-S, stop less light at tele end, etc) probably aren't worth it.

While you probably won't be upgrading to full-frame anytime soon, with your current gear, you don't need a lens that goes ultra-wide, the Tokina covers that. I'd say 24-105 makes a lot of sense, since it complements your gear set well and sets you up perfectly if you do ever go full frame. And, it allows you two different walk-around lenses, rather than having multiple lenses with the exact same focal range (17-50ish).