- Status
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
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.
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.
Upvote
0
My suggestion is to choose a format and commit to it. Don't get caught halfway in-between trying to hedge your bets.!Xabbu said:
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).
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
AJ said:
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
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.AJ said:
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).
Upvote
0
Used to have 10-22 and 24-105 on 50d but found myself switching back and forth between these lenses too often! It might sound good to cover the whole 10-105mm focal length range without too much overlap, but it didnt work for me. A key reason for me upgrading to FF was that the 24-105, which I love, would become much more useful (24mm was not wide enough for me on crop sensor).
I recommend the 24-105 if you're planning to upgrade to FF and can live with less wide angle on your crop camera for a while. You could also consider adding the 17-40 which is reasonably priced and takes care of the wide end on crop and it could later serve as an ultra wide on FF.
I recommend the 24-105 if you're planning to upgrade to FF and can live with less wide angle on your crop camera for a while. You could also consider adding the 17-40 which is reasonably priced and takes care of the wide end on crop and it could later serve as an ultra wide on FF.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
No, this isn't the case - when using iso800 or maybe iso1600 with a lens with IS, the 60d works pretty well even in lower light with reasonable iso noise. It's just that focussing @f5.6 isn't very reliable in these conditions.
When using single-point af, I'm used to shoot 2-3 pictures and then dump the out of focus ones. It's better with multi-point af, but sadly there are too few af points spread too far apart. This is where the 7d should shine, but alas, it doesn't run magic lantern :-(
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
I don't really know how large the difference between f4 and f2.8 is concerning af performance on the 60d, but I can say f4 is good on my 70-300L in non-optimal light. But if regularly shooting something you cannot take multiple shots of, I guess getting f2.8 like on the Tamron 24-70 for safety isn't a bad idea - for tele lenses, it's just that the 70-200/2.8 was too zoom-short, expensive, physically-large and heavy for me. And a good af like on the 5d3 should do better anyway.
Concerning 15-85 or 24-105, it's really a matter of "do you need the wide angle" or get another ef-s ultrawide, and if sealing is important for the environment the lens will be used in. And last not least, let's not forget the 15-85 is way cheaper than the L and should give comparable performance in most situations.
Upvote
0
I sold my 24-105 after getting the 17-55 f/2.8. I found it was just not wide enough on my 7D. The difference on the long end is not so noticeable as I also have a 70-200 in my bag, and the gap in focal length between the two lenses I have not had a problem with at all.
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
I see no reason to own the 24-70 or 24-105 on a crop body with the 17-55mm around. It is as sharp slightly lacking range but is fast and has IS. Only thing it misses is weather sealing, had mine in all sorts of conditions, soaked dry etc only thing is it does suffer a little with dust but chuck a UV filter on the front should reduce this.
Reason for my opinion is I did the same thing wanted to go FF in the future so got a 24-105mm and it was great on the long end but constantly switching lenses for the wide what do you combine it with? The equivalent focal length is 38.4-168mm, combining it with a 10-22 there is a huge gap. Buy a 17-40mm in between equivalent of 27.2-64mm Dont get me wrong the 24-70 and 24-105 are incredible lenses but the dedicated EF-s lenses are more suitable. so 3 lenses for a standard focal range... then you need a tele because 168 is ok but not that far so a 70-200mm equivalent of 110-320.
I decided to sell the 24-105mm got a 17-55mm had the 10-22 so that filled the standard zoom range. Also had the 70-200mm so there was a gap on the other end between the 55-110 but depends what you shoot I dont shoot portraits really apart from the odd wedding so filled that with a 50mm which is 80mm equivalent and I tend to shoot on the wider side.
Also the 17-55mm are high in demand, buying one and selling it you shouldn't loose too much money. Most are selling second hand in the UK for between £500-£650 depending on condition.
If your moving to FF then sell it and change up to the 24-105 or 24-70mm. I think that the only FF lenses worth having for a crop body are the teles 70-200 and everything above, the 100mm L or non L macro, TS because there is no crop equivalent For wide and standard the crop sector has it covered, the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm are a fantastic combination. The standard and even the wide full frame lenses are not wide and offer a strange focal length meaning you have to learn to shoot in an unfamiliar way.
My kit fills most of my need for crop, the obvious drawback is to sell the lenses which is an inconvenience not a deal breaker.
10-22mm
17-55mm
50mm = 80mm
100mm L macro
70-200mm
Suits my style but would be nice to have a medium tele in the range at events but they dont make a fixed aperture just the 15-85mm try to stay clear of vari aperture lenses.
If they made a 15-85mm 2.8 I would be all over it but they wont, im guessing because it would sacrifice all the other lens offerings although im sure the price would make your eyes water. Plus not many pros shoot crop for everything more for the tele end and reduced cost of lenses so less need I suppose.
Best case have a 7D for length 5D MKIII for everything else. 8)
Reason for my opinion is I did the same thing wanted to go FF in the future so got a 24-105mm and it was great on the long end but constantly switching lenses for the wide what do you combine it with? The equivalent focal length is 38.4-168mm, combining it with a 10-22 there is a huge gap. Buy a 17-40mm in between equivalent of 27.2-64mm Dont get me wrong the 24-70 and 24-105 are incredible lenses but the dedicated EF-s lenses are more suitable. so 3 lenses for a standard focal range... then you need a tele because 168 is ok but not that far so a 70-200mm equivalent of 110-320.
I decided to sell the 24-105mm got a 17-55mm had the 10-22 so that filled the standard zoom range. Also had the 70-200mm so there was a gap on the other end between the 55-110 but depends what you shoot I dont shoot portraits really apart from the odd wedding so filled that with a 50mm which is 80mm equivalent and I tend to shoot on the wider side.
Also the 17-55mm are high in demand, buying one and selling it you shouldn't loose too much money. Most are selling second hand in the UK for between £500-£650 depending on condition.
If your moving to FF then sell it and change up to the 24-105 or 24-70mm. I think that the only FF lenses worth having for a crop body are the teles 70-200 and everything above, the 100mm L or non L macro, TS because there is no crop equivalent For wide and standard the crop sector has it covered, the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm are a fantastic combination. The standard and even the wide full frame lenses are not wide and offer a strange focal length meaning you have to learn to shoot in an unfamiliar way.
My kit fills most of my need for crop, the obvious drawback is to sell the lenses which is an inconvenience not a deal breaker.
10-22mm
17-55mm
50mm = 80mm
100mm L macro
70-200mm
Suits my style but would be nice to have a medium tele in the range at events but they dont make a fixed aperture just the 15-85mm try to stay clear of vari aperture lenses.
If they made a 15-85mm 2.8 I would be all over it but they wont, im guessing because it would sacrifice all the other lens offerings although im sure the price would make your eyes water. Plus not many pros shoot crop for everything more for the tele end and reduced cost of lenses so less need I suppose.
Best case have a 7D for length 5D MKIII for everything else. 8)
Upvote
0
tomscott said:
The 1.6 crop factor also needs to be taken into account with EF-S lenses, e.g:
10-22mm corresponds to 16-35mm FF FOV
17-55mm corresponds to 27-88mm FF FOV
In other words, there is a negligible 2mm gap between the 10-22 and 24-105, and a small 15mm gap between 17-55 and 70-200 on crop cameras.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
