24-85 mm vs 18 -55 mm kit lens?

[phizz6]

I would like an opinion on the image quality of the kit lens vs the 24-85 USM. I am trying to decide if it would be worth applying the $100 for the kit lens toward the $300 24-85 USM to use as a decent walk around lens when I order a 20 D. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information about the 24-85 mm in the various forms and there are not many listed in the equipment profiles. Is there some issue with the 24-85 that I am missing?

[DaveG]

I would like an opinion on the image quality of the kit lens vs the 24-85 USM. I am trying to decide if it would be worth applying the $100 for the kit lens toward the $300 24-85 USM to use as a decent walk around lens when I order a 20 D. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information about the 24-85 mm in the various forms and there are not many listed in the equipment profiles. Is there some issue with the 24-85 that I am missing?

I've got a 24-85 mm lens and I like it a lot. From all accounts the kit lens - at least the non USM one - isn't all that great. But I don't own one and have never used one, so I'm not in the position to comment. But my 24-85 is a very very good lens, and I CAN comment on that.

I used it this past weekend with a 70-200 F2.8 L lens to photograph the Queen Mary 2 and the sharpness and contrast were excellent with the 24-85. It also gets used for portraiture when I want a focal length a bit longer than my 50 f1.4. In that roll it's often TOO sharp to be flattering, which is a nice problem to have.

The 24-85 is USM which will focus faster than the non USM kit lens and offers anytime manual focus. The other advantage with the 24-85 is that you can choose to use it on a 1:1.3 or a 1:1 camera. Now I'm going to buy the 10-22 lens that can only be used on the dRebel or a 20D, as soon as I can, so take this next bit with a little salt, but who knows where you, I, and Canon will be in five years. Will the 60D be a 20 MP full frame DSLR and make all of these 1:1.6 lenses useless? I mean even Canon doesn't know!

Now the one other thing to take into account is the day that you sell your 20D. A camera body without a lens narrows the field of prospect buyers considerably, and with the advances in technology it's unlikely that if YOU want to sell the camera, then someone would want the same camera as an extra body.

It's the high school kid who can afford something - as long as it comes with a lens - that is your market place for the 2007's equivalent of a D30. So as silly as this is going to sound, for about $100 I'd get the kit lens AND then the 24-85, just to plan for that day. Geez that kit lens isn't all that more expensive than a body cap :D and it does go a bit wider than the 24-85 too!

[Andy_T]

I don't know the 24-85 lens, but 300$ sounds a bit steep for such a standard lens with no special discerning qualities. I doubt that Canon consumer grade zoom lenses can not be bought used at much more favourable prices.

If you want a new lens, for a fistful of dollars more ($ 370), you'll get the Tamron 2.8/28-75 XR DI, which is by all accounts a fabulous lens with an image quality similar to the 24-70 L.

Look at the lens tests at www.photozone.de !

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

Good point andy.
The only prob is that the 24-85 is lacking a fair bit in wide angle ability and the tamron is worse still.

If you feel you can live without the wide angle ability the tamron would be a winner

[J___]

i have both the kit lense and the 24-85mm USM. i have to say the kit lens quality isnt that good... especially at the widest, the barrel distortion is HORRIBLE! on the other hand, the 24-85mm is fabulous. it's rated pretty high for a non-L lense. mine was $530cdn new. so that's about $300 us.
one downside about it is that minimum focus distance between lense and subject is 1.5ft... so u can forget about any extreme macros(which i often do) because the 85mm tele isnt strong enough to give u any extreme macros from that distance. that's one reason i kept the kit lense. u can get pretty close with the kit lense to the subject. and with a closeup filter, u can be touching the subject with the tip of the lense and still have it be in focus.

i plan on getting an 70-200mm L lense in the future and keep the kit and 24-85mm. that way i can have superb telephoto quality with good mid range and a lense that'll let me do extreme macros with the subject close to the lense.

all in all if u do macros, get both the kit lense and 24-85mm. they r great

[Mark_Cohran]

Like others here, I have both the 18-55 kit and the 24-85 USM lenses. The 24-85 is by far a much better lens with good contrast and sharpness. It's a great, little walking around lens and well worth the price. I don't know much about the Tamron as I stay away from non-Canon lenses so I don't have to worry about future compatibility with my camera bodies, but it sounds like another viable option. I can, however, heartily recommend the 24-85 as one of the best Canon consumer lenses.


Mark

[Deckyon]

I stated this in another thread, but it applies here as well...

If you are going with the 20D, get the USM lenses. In order to use the ETTL-II, you must have the USM lenses, because they transmit back distance information that the ETTL-II algorithymn uses.

I have seen, and played with, and refused the "kit lens." I opted to go with the 50mm f/1.4 USM lens with the difference applied. I made sure to get just USM lenses, at least - other than the 50mm, I got f/2.8 L lenses.

I think you will be disappointed if you do not stick with the USM lenses, especially if you use the flash a lot. Even the On-Camera flash requires USM lenses for ETTL-II.

[DaveG]

I stated this in another thread, but it applies here as well...

If you are going with the 20D, get the USM lenses. In order to use the ETTL-II, you must have the USM lenses, because they transmit back distance information that the ETTL-II algorithymn uses.

I have seen, and played with, and refused the "kit lens." I opted to go with the 50mm f/1.4 USM lens with the difference applied. I made sure to get just USM lenses, at least - other than the 50mm, I got f/2.8 L lenses.

I think you will be disappointed if you do not stick with the USM lenses, especially if you use the flash a lot. Even the On-Camera flash requires USM lenses for ETTL-II.

Uh, the bad news for you is that the 50 f1.4 is NOT E-TTL 2 compliant. Have a look at this chart: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf

[Deckyon]

I did see that. But I was not going to spend the extra money for the 35mm f/1.4 L lens. I got the 50 for a carry-around. I did not like the 50mm f/1.8 but found the 50mm f/1.4 an excellent lens even w/out ETTL-II

:oops: I did read that earlier today, but forgot about it. I have been reading so much lately.

[shiningstardv]

As far as quality of the lenses go, (sharpness, color, etc.) how would you say the 24-85mm compares to the 28-105mm? Anyone tried both?

[wintoid]

I've just upgraded from a 300d to a 20d and I'm finding that my 24-85mm zoom is looking sharper than my 50mm 1.4 prime, which definitely wasn't the case with the 300d. At the moment, I couldn't be happier with the 24-85mm, although I'm a bit concerned about the prime.

Perhaps it's because I've only been home late, and had to shoot using flash (550ex), with that weird red pattern light it fires to assist in focusing. Gonna try again in natural light at the weekend.

[Mark_Cohran]

The 24-85mm is, IMO, better than the 28-105 for a crisper image (contrast and sharpness). The build is about the same.

Mark

[Bodog]

This link may help:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm
the 28-105, 28-135 and 24-85 are compared.