15-85 vs 24-105

What are the differences between those lenses, and does it worth the difference in price?
I am going to use it on the 60d.
Thank you!

on a 60D... buy 15-85mm.

It is cheaper, just as sharp, great contrast, and it has the latest IS and an excelent AF.'
The 15-85mm is also having a great macro ability.

15mm is important for my cind of photography. I wouldn't like to be without it. 24mm is just not enough.

Others will probably explain the smaller differences. But my impression is that these two lenses are very much equal in quality.
Those areas where mybe 24-105 is bether is not something you as a new photographer will think about when you walk around and thake shot.
I don't think most pros will bother much eather.

If you are disatisfied with the IQ of 15-85, you will not be satisfied with 24-105 either. Then Prime is the only way to go.

If i buy a 5d, I would definently sell my 15-85 and buy a 24-105 pared with a prime. But as long as I am useing a 60D, 15-85 will be my best friend.

I had the Canon 500D with the 15mm-85mm - absolutely loved it, hated to give it when I went full frame. Now I have the 24mm-105mm on the 5D II and must say, both lens are spectacular when paired with their intended cameras.

For the 60D, go with the 15 - 85.

Oh i swear i meant to write i don't need the 15 on the wide end.. 24 is enough for me.

Main difference is full frame compatibility and zoom range. Optically very similar (that is to say excellent)

uri1411 wrote in post #14308906
Oh i swear i meant to write i don't need the 15 on the wide end.. 24 is enough for me.

Are you sure? Maybe you don't need 15, but what about 17, 20, 22? You can do a minor crop and get from 85 to 105mm, but you can't uncrop a 24mm to 15. It's almost twice as wide.

I had the EF-S 17-85. No where near happy with that lens. I'd put my money on the 24-105 being a better lens.

I had the 24-85 but it broke..i wasn't missing the mm in the wide end

As stated above, the Canon 15-85 IS is an outstanding lens optically and in terms of IS. It's on my 60D about 90% of the time for the past 1.5 years, and it does a fantastic job. I would never be happy limited to the angle of a 24mm focal length on a crop sensor (38.4 mm equivalent). Finally to AbPho: all evaluations indicate that the 15-85 has much better image quality than the old 17-85. There's no comparison.

I use a 15-85 on my crop camera and the 24-105 on my FF. I would defy anyone to tell the difference in IQ without severe pixel peeping.

On a 60D, go for the 15-85 every time.

On a crop camera the 15-85 is sharp and a very useful range . If at times you want a wider aperture also get a prime.

michgirl wrote in post #14308863
both lens are spectacular when paired with their intended cameras.

tkbslc wrote in post #14308928
You can do a minor crop and get from 85 to 105mm, but you can't uncrop a 24mm to 15. It's almost twice as wide.

^^
Crop = 15 - 85 > 24-105.

24 is not wide enough on crop, I use it with my t2i
but 24-105 has better build quality, and it can save your money when you go to full frame.
To me 105 make more sense than 15, you can do portrait sports with 105 on a crop.
F4 is another advantage. 24-105 is not expensive by the way, BNIB is below 900

AbPho wrote in post #14308931
I had the EF-S 17-85. No where near happy with that lens. I'd put my money on the 24-105 being a better lens.

The 15-85, not the the 17-85, is the lens being compared here. The 17-85 isn't in the same league. I had one and replaced it with 15-85. It is night and day in range, IQ and IS vs 17-85. To me versatility is king in a walk around and the wide end is crucial for that especially indoors. Unless you hate the wide end or plan to move to FF soon I'd suggest 15-85.
For the price difference you can also buy a used 28-135 if you need some reach and buy the 15-85.

I agree with the 15-85. I read all the forums too and told myself that 24mm was wide enough on a cropped body and probably had some L lust, and ended up buying both, but the 15-85 proved to be the better range and balanced the 60 D better.