bettyn wrote in post #12592844
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....