15-85 Equivalent on Full Frame

[Flamingtree]

Hi All,

I am currently a 7D owner and am going to upgrade to FF this year. Probably to a 5D 4 when it comes out, if the specs / price work for me.

I currently use a efs 15-85 as my general purpose lens and absolutely love it. I am struggling to find something equivalent.

My 15-85 gets treated poorly and would like to be able to do similar with the new lens. I would also like to be able to take just one lens on holidays with me, so a bit of extra reach would be great.

I would like it to have IS and be at least moderately weather sealed and be under 1500 AUD.

I have considered:

Canon 24-105 - I hear mixed reviews, is it too old in the tooth and will be crappy on a modern FF camera?
Canon 24-70 f4 IS - I hear it has some sort of optical issue, that I could understand
Sigma 24-105 - I hear better iq than the canon but no weather sealing
Tamron 24-70 - generally well reviewed, af issues? Probably my current front runner, even if it tops out at 70.

I had considered the canon 16-35 f4 as I plan to get a copy one day for landscapes but thought it would be too short as a general lens and would have to bring my 70-300 L on every holiday.

If it helps my other lenses are:
Tamron sp 35
Canon 50 L
Canon 100 L macro
Canon 70-300 L
A bunch of smc takuma adapted lenses.

The reason I ask now is I am going on a holiday in a couple of weeks so I could get the lens in advance of the camera tax free.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Has anyone else gone through the same thing? What did you choose and are you happy?

Cheers

Petja

 

[visby]

I have the canon 24-105 on 6d and it works OK. I am satisfied with it, it is my always on lens on holidays because of the zoom range.

IQ is not the best, but it is enough for my use.

 

[neonlight]

Not sure if this helps, but I compared my 18-135/600D with my son's 24-105L/6D. Due to poor weather conditions the comparison was limited, but I found even on the 600D the 24-105 was marginally better (another conclusion was that the 18-135 was not bad, and I've been quite happy with that). The larger pixels of FF seem to help (unless you purchase a 5DS), so I think as a general walk-around/holiday lens the 24-105(L) would be OK, but not as good as a 24-70/2.8L if you are really concerned about IQ.
There was a rumour a while back, if memory serves correctly, that the 24-105 was due to be replaced ... but there are always rumours of new replacements...and we've recently seen a non-L 24-105, which may be what that was.

 

[docsmith]

The first step is really to figure out how you are using your 7D/EFS 15-85. The best thing to do is analyze the shots you have taken with it and look for which focal lengths you have used it most. And then ask if you want f/2.8.

I shot for years with the 7D EFS 15-85. I am sorry to say this, but I am not aware of a "FF" equivalent, but that is how I used the lens/camera combo. My issue is that I used the whole focal length range. My shots would cluster around 15-20 mm and then 70-85 mm with a smaller cluster from 35-50 mm. In other words, I used the extremes the most and the middle a little.

There is no single lens FF equivalent to that usage pattern. I tried the EF 24-105, but, if you think about it, 70 mm on APS-C is 112 mm on FF. So my usage from 70-85 mm was not covered. And that is almost exactly what I found. The EF 24-105 just never felt long enough. I'd either have to crop or switch lenses. Eventually I sold it and have replaced it with the EF 24-70 II and EF 70-200 II.

So, look at your usage of the 7D/EFS 15-85 and figure out how to replace that usage. So, it would be easier to recommend something if you tell us something like "I like to shoot Landscapes, on the 7D, I mostly shot from 24-35 mm" or "I mostly shoot my kids, on the 7D I had clusters at x mm and yy mm" etc.

But to go down your list of options, those are capable lenses and you have >70 mm covered. I would go with the EF 24-105 f/4 IS if you want a great travel lens, a single lens solutions and you would use the whole 24-105 range. The EF 24-70 f/4 IS is slightly better in the 24-70 range, so if you are fine with switching lenses or even favor replacing that focal length range I would get it. In addition, it has less distortion, better (more current IS) and "macro" at 70 mm. Then get the Tamron, if you want the f/2.8.

 

[IglooEater]

docsmith has a good point- what the lens is used for is a big factor. Going through your exit data and finding out what focal lento you use the most might help you decide.

I have the 24-105 and am quite satisfied, honestly. Heavy CA is the only bad thing, but software takes care of that nicely. I've not had trouble with sharpness in that lens, but I'm not the most critical pixel-peeper out there. It's a fine walk-around and is on the camera a lot of the time.
I only considered the 24-105, the 24-70 f/4 is, and the (canon) 24-70 2.8. The sigma didn't exist at the time, and I was unaware of the Tamron. The 24-70 2.8 was too expensive, and frankly for my intended use, (landscape) I wanted the IS over 2.8 anyway. 24-70 has a macro advantage, but I ended up getting the 24-105 for the portrait-length 70-105. The 24-105 is actually pretty solid in sharpness until ~85mm and is softest at 105. Not soft, just less sharp than the rest of the lens. However, I figured that the slightly softer long end of the lens would be better than cropping 70mm. Overall I'm quite happy with it.

I agree with you on the 16-35. It would really fill out your focal length range, but it would mean carrying two (or three) lenses a lot more. My 24-105 often get's thrown in the pack with the camera and no other lenses just because it's pretty decent for most things.

 

[dak723]

The 24-105L works fine for me. My advice: Stop reading reviews and just go out and take pictures.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The lens you are looking for does not exist for full frame Canon cameras.

There is EF28-135mm Image Stabilizer, I've ever had, and I was never satisfied with their quality.
In the past, there was a EF28-200mm, but without Image Stabilizer.
Today there is EF28-300mm very large, heavy and expensive.

Tamron makes a 28-300mm Image Stabilizer with good size and weight, but only F3.5-6.3 and quality mediocre image, and no weather seal.

 

[rs]

The 15-85/3.5-5.6 behaves like a theoretical 24-136/5.6-9 lens would on FF. The 24-105L, while not providing the same narrow AoV at the long end, it is better in low light and for shallow DoF.

You can compare sharpness at various settings, and other attributes such as distortion and flare.

If you're happy with non weather sealed variable aperture lenses, the 24-105 STM could be worth considering too

 

[TexPhoto]

As others have said, there is no "equivalent". In my experience, the 24-105 is a great all purpose lens that takes abuse and delivers solid results. If you can get this lens in a kit, do. Otherwise new ones from eBay are available taken from kits for far less than retail
The 24-70 2.8 II, and 70-200 2.8 ISII are an astonishing combo if you can afford them. One or both of these is where you want to be for ultimate quality.

 

[Larsskv]

I had the 24-105L on my 6D. Now I have the 16-35 f/4 L IS, the 24-70 f/f L IS and the 24-70 f/2.8 L II on the 5Ds. I was quite satisfied with the 24-105L. It is a little soft at f/4, but improves a fair bit at f/5.6. If you are using it at smaller apertures, it is a good lens. However, I did compare it to the f/2.8L II, and the difference in sharpness and contrast was easy to see, regardless of aperture.

If you don´t need the reach, the 24-70 f/4 L IS is a very good option, I think. It is almost as good as the f/2.8L II, at some apertures it is actually even better in the corners. Further it has macro ability and IS. It is also the lightest and smallest option. It has very fast and accurate AF - which might be a concern if you are getting Sigma or Tamron.

I would like to add that the 16-35 f/4 L IS is my favorite lens, but preference for wide angle is a subjective thing. The 16-35 f/4L has an advantage over the other lenses I have mentioned here, and that is that it handles flare remarkably well. I often shoot with the sun in the frame, creating sunstars at f/11-f/16, and the 16-35 will often be free of artifacts caused by the sun. The 24-70 f/2.8LII is quite disappointing in comparison.

 

[TeT]

24 105 FF is as close to 15 85 APC that you will get. The 24 70 2.8 L II is the creme de la creme optically. the 24 70 4 L is number two (worst performance on this is middle 40 to 50mm) Tammy 2.8 has an argument for number 2 but is number 3.

The IQ on all of these is great... even the 24 105 will be fine on the 5D4. The 24 105 has great zoom range and gives up very very little to the others in real world use. All of these are sharp middle range and differences are mostly corners and wide open apertures...

 

[Flamingtree]

The first step is really to figure out how you are using your 7D/EFS 15-85. The best thing to do is analyze the shots you have taken with it and look for which focal lengths you have used it most. And then ask if you want f/2.8.

I shot for years with the 7D EFS 15-85. I am sorry to say this, but I am not aware of a "FF" equivalent, but that is how I used the lens/camera combo. My issue is that I used the whole focal length range. My shots would cluster around 15-20 mm and then 70-85 mm with a smaller cluster from 35-50 mm. In other words, I used the extremes the most and the middle a little.

There is no single lens FF equivalent to that usage pattern. I tried the EF 24-105, but, if you think about it, 70 mm on APS-C is 112 mm on FF. So my usage from 70-85 mm was not covered. And that is almost exactly what I found. The EF 24-105 just never felt long enough. I'd either have to crop or switch lenses. Eventually I sold it and have replaced it with the EF 24-70 II and EF 70-200 II.

So, look at your usage of the 7D/EFS 15-85 and figure out how to replace that usage. So, it would be easier to recommend something if you tell us something like "I like to shoot Landscapes, on the 7D, I mostly shot from 24-35 mm" or "I mostly shoot my kids, on the 7D I had clusters at x mm and yy mm" etc.

But to go down your list of options, those are capable lenses and you have >70 mm covered. I would go with the EF 24-105 f/4 IS if you want a great travel lens, a single lens solutions and you would use the whole 24-105 range. The EF 24-70 f/4 IS is slightly better in the 24-70 range, so if you are fine with switching lenses or even favor replacing that focal length range I would get it. In addition, it has less distortion, better (more current IS) and "macro" at 70 mm. Then get the Tamron, if you want the f/2.8.

Thank you docsmith for putting the time into your response, this is very good advice.

For landscapes I almost exclusively use the 15-85. A good 30% of my shots are around 15mm;
There is a cluster around of ~20% on 35mm, which is why I bought the Tamron prime.
There is a spike around 85mm. Although on reviewing these shots they are almost all travel shots where I have tried to make do with what I had on hand at the time.

The rest is a spread. My data is actually similar to yours.

Where you ended up makes sense, the more I think about it. Your right 105 is not 135 and there is no FF lens that will get me there, so 105 would likely still be too short me.

docsmith has a good point- what the lens is used for is a big factor. Going through your exit data and finding out what focal lento you use the most might help you decide.

I have the 24-105 and am quite satisfied, honestly. Heavy CA is the only bad thing, but software takes care of that nicely. I've not had trouble with sharpness in that lens, but I'm not the most critical pixel-peeper out there. It's a fine walk-around and is on the camera a lot of the time.
I only considered the 24-105, the 24-70 f/4 is, and the (canon) 24-70 2.8. The sigma didn't exist at the time, and I was unaware of the Tamron. The 24-70 2.8 was too expensive, and frankly for my intended use, (landscape) I wanted the IS over 2.8 anyway. 24-70 has a macro advantage, but I ended up getting the 24-105 for the portrait-length 70-105. The 24-105 is actually pretty solid in sharpness until ~85mm and is softest at 105. Not soft, just less sharp than the rest of the lens. However, I figured that the slightly softer long end of the lens would be better than cropping 70mm. Overall I'm quite happy with it.

I agree with you on the 16-35. It would really fill out your focal length range, but it would mean carrying two (or three) lenses a lot more. My 24-105 often get's thrown in the pack with the camera and no other lenses just because it's pretty decent for most things.

IglooEater its interesting about what you say that the 24-105 is softest at its longer end. To me it reinforces what docsmith said, perhaps I do need to consider two lens holidays...

WIth regard to the 16-35 I dribble a little when I think about what it can do on a FF!

The 15-85/3.5-5.6 behaves like a theoretical 24-136/5.6-9 lens would on FF. The 24-105L, while not providing the same narrow AoV at the long end, it is better in low light and for shallow DoF.

You can compare sharpness at various settings, and other attributes such as distortion and flare.

If you're happy with non weather sealed variable aperture lenses, the 24-105 STM could be worth considering too

Thank you, that is a very cool tool, I am going to have to play with that some more! I think the weather sealing is important to me. I treated the 15-85 as if it were weather sealed (because I thought it was) - I think i just got lucky. I would rather a lens I don't have to worry about too much from drizzle or a bit of sea spray.

Thanks every one else for your replies as well. You have given me plenty to think about. As TexPhoto point out some of these lenses come in kits so I should probably check that out before I jump in...

Out of interest of those who travel with two lenses, how do you do it? Do you always carry a spare on you while you are out or do you think ahead and only take the one out you think you will need on a day trip? If you are carting just one spare lens what sort of bag do you use?

Cheers

Petja

 

[Random Orbits]

Agree with the others that the 24-70 f/4 IS is a good choice and the 24-70 f/2.8 II is a great choice if you can afford it. Both lenses are short on the long end, so you end up bringing a second lens more often (than crop options). Either your 100L or 70-300L with complement either 24-70 choice well.

For a two lens setup, I actually prefer using the 16-35 f/4 IS/70-300L combo and skip the midrange zoom. The 16-35 is a fantastic landscape/general use lens, and the 70-300 gives you the reach when you want it.

 

[bluenoser1993]

If you are becoming open to a two lens arrangement, don't rule out a prime to compliment the range of the zoom. A 135L f/2 is essentially the same size as a 24-105 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8, but much smaller than your 70-300 or any of the 70-200s. I've travelled with that and a zoom and was quite happy with it, no issues getting in stadiums, etc. 135 f/2 has amazing image quality and I will sometimes take along a 1.4X III (fits in a pocket) which takes it to just under 200mm and still at f/2.8

 

[Chisox2335]

I have the 15-85 and the 24-70 f4. I've been very happy with both.

I shoot them on a 70d and a 6d

 

[Ozarker]

Hi All,

I am currently a 7D owner and am going to upgrade to FF this year. Probably to a 5D 4 when it comes out, if the specs / price work for me.

I currently use a efs 15-85 as my general purpose lens and absolutely love it. I am struggling to find something equivalent.

My 15-85 gets treated poorly and would like to be able to do similar with the new lens.

Cheers

Petja

If you know you will mistreat a lens, buy used no matter what. Not sure what you mean by "mistreated" but I wouldn't waste the money on good glass if "mistreated" means what I think it means.

Ultimately, it is your money.

I can't afford to mistreat anything. I'm wondering how one mistreats a lens without mistreating the camera at the same time. Especially on a one lens set-up. Good luck to you.

Sounds like something out of "Fifty Shades of Gray". Poor lens. Is the safe word "Sony"?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I liked my 15-85 for crop bodies, but my 24-105mm L blows it away on FF. The distortion near 24mm is easily corrected.

 

[Mikehit]

Out of interest of those who travel with two lenses, how do you do it?

I think you may find your self keeping the one lens on the camera, changing the way you shoot subjects at the long end or cropping more often - the crop difference between 100 and 135 is not huge.
But if I do carry two lenses, I rarely go anywhere without a daypack in which I can put the camera when I want to be discrete, so the second lens is in there (with spare card, battery and polariser). Or a bumbag.

Mind you, when I got my MFT rig for street shooting, I found a second MFT body with lens attanhed is smaller than the second APS-C lens I found myself carrying! Always ready

 

[Woody]

I liked my 15-85 for crop bodies, but my 24-105mm L blows it away on FF. The distortion near 24mm is easily corrected.

Well, well, ain't that the truth. Almost every lens that gets mounted on FF sensors, even those maligned ones like the 24-105 f/4L, produces extraordinary details.

 

[JPAZ]

FWIW, I shot the 15-85 on an AP-C for years and it really is an under-appreciated workhorse. When I moved to FF, I got the 24-105 as a "kit" and the advantages of the FF sensor more than make up for any "pixel peeping" issues with the lens. Now, my workhorse is the 24-70 f/2.8 ii (no IS and even less reach) and I could not be happier.

The IQ is so much better and it has forced me to be "steadier" and think more about shutter speed. I would not go back to that good and solid 15-85 now. If there is any downside, it is that I spend a little more time in PP (have to crop to get the same reach when necessary). Go for the 24-105 and don't look back.