Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Jun 2011 (Monday) 21:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Selling 17-85 IS, what lens to replace it?

 
bettyn
Goldmember
Avatar
3,448 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Marco Island FL
     
Jun 13, 2011 21:30 |  #1

Have a 17-85 IS lens that I want to sell (IQ issues). Am looking at replacing it with an EF-S 15-85 IS, a EF 24-105L IS, or EF 24-70L. (May buy a 5d someday). I like the 24-70L, but am concerned about its weight for a walk-around lens as I'm a small, older female. Considering what I already own (see below), what would be my best choice? Am going to the Denali/Fairbanks area of Alaska in mid August. Would like to have the lens by then.

Thanks in advance.


My Gear: 6D, 7D, EOS-M w EF-M 22 f2 STM and EF-M 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, 17-40L f4, 24-70L f2.8, 100 f2.8 non-IS macro, 70-200L f/4 IS, 400L f5.6,, Canon 1.4x II TC, Canon Speedlite 430 EX II, Better Beamer. Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod, 2 monopods, Manfrotto ballhead and pistol grip tripod heads.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jun 13, 2011 21:33 |  #2

Did you frequently use the 17-85 at the wide end? If so, go with the 15-85. It should be a solid upgrade. If not, it sounds like the 24-105 might be the best choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bettyn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,448 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Marco Island FL
     
Jun 13, 2011 21:36 |  #3

bpark42 wrote in post #12588855 (external link)
Did you frequently use the 17-85 at the wide end? If so, go with the 15-85. It should be a solid upgrade. If not, it sounds like the 24-105 might be the best choice.

No. Usually use the 10-22 or 17-40 for wide shots. How's the IQ on the 24-105 compared to the 24-70?


My Gear: 6D, 7D, EOS-M w EF-M 22 f2 STM and EF-M 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, 17-40L f4, 24-70L f2.8, 100 f2.8 non-IS macro, 70-200L f/4 IS, 400L f5.6,, Canon 1.4x II TC, Canon Speedlite 430 EX II, Better Beamer. Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod, 2 monopods, Manfrotto ballhead and pistol grip tripod heads.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregoryF
Goldmember
Avatar
2,329 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Bella Vista, AR
     
Jun 13, 2011 21:38 |  #4

I agree if you shot more at the wide end, then the 15-85 would be good for you. Conversely if you found your self shooting at the lon end (like me) the the 24-105 is a great choice. With either one you will see an improvement in picture quality.


6D, 5D, 7Dii, Eos R and too many lenses, flashes and aux. gear to list!:cool:
A simple hobby gone horribily wrong

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jun 13, 2011 21:59 |  #5

bettyn wrote in post #12588863 (external link)
No. Usually use the 10-22 or 17-40 for wide shots. How's the IQ on the 24-105 compared to the 24-70?

That is a subject of endless debate. In short, they are close enough that you should probably choose based on whether you need the extra stop on the 24-70. The 24-70 will also probably be a little better at f4 since it is already stopped down at that point while the 24-105 is wide open (not its strength).

Based on the somewhat limited description you gave of your shooting needs, the 24-105 sounds like the better fit.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 311
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jun 14, 2011 08:46 |  #6

Looking to upgrade my 17-85 a few years ago, I was torn between both the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 24-105 f/4 L IS. I went with the 24-105 f/4 L IS. Even though shortly after I did buy the 17-55, my go to walk around is still my go to 24-105 as I like the extra reach it provides.
Compared to the 24-70 f/2.8, the 24-105 is smaller, lighter, has more reach and has Image Stabilization.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 134
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jun 14, 2011 08:51 |  #7

bettyn wrote in post #12588863 (external link)
No. Usually use the 10-22 or 17-40 for wide shots. How's the IQ on the 24-105 compared to the 24-70?

it can depend on the one you get. for what you describe, i'd go with the 24-105, it's got IS which you might enjoy having in Alaska.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KVN ­ Photo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,940 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
     
Jun 14, 2011 11:22 |  #8

24-105, I have 24-70 and for ME I don't find myself shooting at f/2.8 very often and usually I would appreciate having IS when shooting on low light.

And you've got 17-40 and 70-200 as well, so 24-105 I think will fit your collection nicely.
And Yes, 24-70 is pretty heavy sometimes.


X-Pro1 + 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS + 55-200 f/3.8-4.5 OIS
TS-E 24 f/3.5L II + XF 35 f/1.4 + XF 56 f/1.2
Sony RX100 II + G12
Travel the world!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
omer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,193 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 205
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Israel
     
Jun 14, 2011 13:39 as a reply to  @ KVN Photo's post |  #9

If you intend to carry one lens with you than
15-85 (my choice) or the 17-55 if you need f2.8

if you can take more than one lens and since you have the 10-22
i say get the 24-105 it has IS and longer reach and it is lighter


_______________
My Flickr (old) http://www.flickr.com/​photos/omfoto/ (external link)
_______________

R6 | 80D | 7D | M6 |RF24-105 STM|RF35 1.8| EF-S 15-85 |EF 70-300 L |Sig 150-600 C| Sig 10-20 | 50 1.8 |100 2.8 macro|28 F2.8 | efs24| efm 15-45| 270EX | 430EXII |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bettyn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,448 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Marco Island FL
     
Jun 14, 2011 14:14 |  #10

Thanks, guys! Think I'll go with the 24-105 if I find a good price on it.


My Gear: 6D, 7D, EOS-M w EF-M 22 f2 STM and EF-M 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, 17-40L f4, 24-70L f2.8, 100 f2.8 non-IS macro, 70-200L f/4 IS, 400L f5.6,, Canon 1.4x II TC, Canon Speedlite 430 EX II, Better Beamer. Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod, 2 monopods, Manfrotto ballhead and pistol grip tripod heads.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jun 14, 2011 17:51 |  #11

bettyn wrote in post #12588840 (external link)
Have a 17-85 IS lens that I want to sell (IQ issues). Am looking at replacing it with an EF-S 15-85 IS, a EF 24-105L IS, or EF 24-70L. (May buy a 5d someday). I like the 24-70L, but am concerned about its weight for a walk-around lens as I'm a small, older female. Considering what I already own (see below), what would be my best choice? Am going to the Denali/Fairbanks area of Alaska in mid August. Would like to have the lens by then.

Thanks in advance.

24mm isn't all that wide on APS-C and the 24-105 is kind of expensive for the IQ it delivers IMO and on APS-C there are alternatives that are arguably even more convenient.

I'd look at:
Tamron 17-50 (I have only used the non-VC; I sold my 17-40L after trying this)
Canon 17-55 IS (if you need IS and the tamron VC doesn't pan out, I hear various reports not sure what to make of the tamron VC version)
Canon 15-85 IS (If you want a really wide range and IS)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jun 14, 2011 17:55 |  #12

bettyn wrote in post #12592844 (external link)
Thanks, guys! Think I'll go with the 24-105 if I find a good price on it.

I'd honestly reconsider. It wasn't as sharp as Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or canon 17-55 IS and some say it is not any sharper than the 15-85 IS either. And it costs a lot. And it really does not go very wide on APS-C at all! I sold mine within a week! since it had mush at the edges on FF and didn't make any sense to me at all on APS-C.

If you think you need more than 50-55mm then I would look at the 15-85 IS first or you can always grab some sort of 55-250 IS, 70-300 IS, tamron 70-300 VC, 70-200 f/4 IS since neither 85mm nor 105mm really gives all that much reach, you might want to do that whatever you get on the short end.

EDIT: oh wow I see you already have the 17-40L, honestly I'd sell the 17-85 IS and 17-40L and then get a canon 17-55 IS+70-200 f/4 IS which is an awesome combo with a very natural switching point of focal length (or tamron 17-50-70-200 f/4 IS if you don't care about IS for the wide zoom or just keep the 17-40L and add a 70-200 f/4 IS although I liked that the tamron has f/2.8 and 10mm extra and is smaller and lighter).
EDITEDIT: oh wow I need to read your equip list first now I see you already have the 70-200 f/4 IS, now I am just confused almost as to what you are trying to do, I guess you find the 17-40 a little too short perhaps the 17-55 with an extra 15mm and IS would be enough? then i would just sell the 17-40L and 17-85 and add that (or tamron 17-50 if the 10mm and 2.8 matters enough to bother) or give the 15-85 IS a really solid look. To me, personally, the 24-105 seems like a very awkward walk around focal range on APS-C for Alaska....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregoryF
Goldmember
Avatar
2,329 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Bella Vista, AR
     
Jun 14, 2011 18:03 |  #13

wombatHorror wrote in post #12594024 (external link)
I'd honestly reconsider. It wasn't as sharp as Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or canon 17-55 IS and some say it is not any sharper than the 15-85 IS either. And it costs a lot. And it really does not go very wide on APS-C at all! I sold mine within a week! since it had mush at the edges on FF and didn't make any sense to me at all on APS-C.

If you think you need more than 50-55mm then I would look at the 15-85 IS first or you can always grab some sort of 55-250 IS, 70-300 IS, tamron 70-300 VC, 70-200 f/4 IS since neither 85mm nor 105mm really gives all that much reach, you might want to do that whatever you get on the short end.

EDIT: oh wow I see you already have the 17-40L, honestly I'd sell the 17-85 IS and 17-40L and then get a canon 17-55 IS+70-200 f/4 IS which is an awesome combo with a very natural switching point of focal length (or tamron 17-50-70-200 f/4 IS if you don't care about IS for the wide zoom or just keep the 17-40L and add a 70-200 f/4 IS although I liked that the tamron has f/2.8 and 10mm extra and is smaller and lighter).
EDITEDIT: oh wow I need to read your equip list first now I see you already have the 70-200 f/4 IS, now I am just confused almost as to what you are trying to do, I guess you find the 17-40 a little too short perhaps the 17-55 with an extra 15mm and IS would be enough? then i would just sell the 17-40L and 17-85 and add that (or tamron 17-50 if the 10mm and 2.8 matters enough to bother) or give the 15-85 IS a really solid look. To me, personally, the 24-105 seems like a very awkward walk around focal range on APS-C for Alaska....

Funny, I hardly touch my Tamron 17-50mm since I aquired my 24-105 L. Different strokes for different folk's.;)


6D, 5D, 7Dii, Eos R and too many lenses, flashes and aux. gear to list!:cool:
A simple hobby gone horribily wrong

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,760 views & 0 likes for this thread
Selling 17-85 IS, what lens to replace it?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MarcusBullen
826 guests, 183 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.