travel and event lens

I have too many lenses, but I am considering a zoom for travel and events on my crop bodies. I already have the 18-55IS, 70-210L, and the Tokina 12-24F4. I have a number of primes, including the Canon 35f2, Tokina 35f2.8 macro, Sigma 50f2.8 macro, Canon 50f1.4, Canon 85f1.8 and Canon 100f2.8 macro.

The 18-55IS and the Tokina 12-24 will probably do anything I would want for travel, but I have been considering the following 3 lenses:
1. Canon 17-40L - good optics, nice convenient size and weight, and would complement the Tokina for travel.
2. Canon 15-85IS. This has a great range, sharp, and reasonable size and weight.
3. Canon 24-105L - This misses the wide end, but I already have the Tokina 12-24. It would be great for events, street festivals and general use, but it is on the large size, weight, and I would wind up getting a white box version.
I would only go full-frame if prices come down.
I have not considered the 17-55IS mainly because of price. I am also not very enthusiastic about the size and weight, and yes, I know the 24-105L is an ounce heavier.

What do you think?

The 24-105 is a great lens and I think you would love it. It is available from Adorama for $829.00 (white box.) That would be the lens I would keep if forced to have only one lens. Weight is relative, it is light to me.

After looking at your current list of lenses I am GUESSING the 15-85 would better fit your style and travel needs. It might allow you to use only one lens.

What does the phrase "I have too many lenses" mean? Is that even possible?
...
The 17-40 is a great lens as is the 24-105. However, I'm FF (for very good reasons) so on a crop even the 17 would not be wide enough for me.

Thanks. I am not looking at a 17-50f2.8, in part because I generally use a fast prime for most low light work.
How well does the 24-105 work in combination with the 12-24 for travel? If I had the 24-105L, I'd be much more likely to use that for travel in combination with the ultrawide.
I was thinking that if I got the 15-85, I'd wind up not using the Tokina, and I like the results that I get with that lens. It does have too much chromatic aberration shooting into the sun, but is sharp and contrasty with little apparent vignetting.
I am having a hard time choosing between the 15-85 and the 24-105L.

On a crop body the 17-40 is what i would choose.

I am experiencing great ambivalence. What I like about a lens like the 15-85 is the range and MTF scores, but I am not enthusiastic about the levels of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, and varying reports of performance at the wide end. I know that you can fix some of this in post processing.

My favorite zoom in the old film days was a fixed aperture 35-70f3.5. I was not happy with my Tamron 28-200.
The 17-40F4 might be useful. What of the reports that it needs microadjustment to be really sharp? I don't have that on my 60D.

If you are not enthusiastic about the size/weight of the 17-55mm f/2.8, then you will not like the 24-105L either. It's about the same size and heavier.

If you do not need f/2.8, then the EFS 15-85mm would be a great travel zoom. It has a perfect "walk around" range for a crop, IMO.

17-40. 24-105, and 100-400. This gives max range, minimum overlap and L quality.

Scott M wrote in post #14497018
If you are not enthusiastic about the size/weight of the 17-55mm f/2.8, then you will not like the 24-105L either. It's about the same size and heavier.

If you do not need f/2.8, then the EFS 15-85mm would be a great travel zoom. It has a perfect "walk around" range for a crop, IMO.

If that's a heavy lens then he better stick to a prime or be fine with a smaller aperture kit lens. I don't see how it's heavy though, I have scrawny stick arms and it doesn't tire me lol.

For that range I have a 24-105 f4 L and a 70-200 f2.8 IS L as I like to have a good overlap to cover my bases and I use them both, to great effect, on my 5D3 and my 60D. The 24-105 is a great range on a crop bearing in mind what other lenses you have to cover the wide end. It's sharp, has fast AF and is accurate and light.
At the moment mine is bagged up in my camera bag virtually unused as I'm shooting lots of macro and aircraft so it's not suitable, but there's no way I'd let it go as it's normally one of my most used lenses.

i am always leery about EF (and third part alts) lenses on crop bodies, and just becuase it says L doesn't mean its the best fit. Some of the older EF lenses while being able to produce absolutely stellar results on a FF, dont have quite the resolving power on some of the newer crop bodies.

Tealtele wrote in post #14497823
If that's a heavy lens then he better stick to a prime or be fine with a smaller aperture kit lens. I don't see how it's heavy though, I have scrawny stick arms and it doesn't tire me lol.

I agree, but the OP made the comment on the 17-55mm being too large/heavy, and the 24-105L is the same size and heavier. Personally, I never found the 17-55mm too large or heavy when I owned one, either. It was a little intimidating to photo subjects at family events, though, which is why I bought a 28mm f/1.8 prime. That became my indoor stealth lens on the 7D.

artyH wrote in post #14496509
Thanks. I am not looking at a 17-50f2.8, in part because I generally use a fast prime for most low light work.
How well does the 24-105 work in combination with the 12-24 for travel? If I had the 24-105L, I'd be much more likely to use that for travel in combination with the ultrawide.
I was thinking that if I got the 15-85, I'd wind up not using the Tokina, and I like the results that I get with that lens. It does have too much chromatic aberration shooting into the sun, but is sharp and contrasty with little apparent vignetting.
I am having a hard time choosing between the 15-85 and the 24-105L.

One lens for travel - 15-85
Two lenses for travel - 24-105 plus your 12-24

A Tokina 12-24 plus a 24-105 should make a great travel combo. I agree completely with your statement about the 12-24 - "sharp and contrasty with little apparent vignetting." I don't notice the difference in weight between the two lenses. They are a very good "fit."

My needs are probably much different than yours. I take a P and S for vacation travel because of size and weight. For events, usually sports, one lens or my 12-24 plus a telephoto lens.

I decided to order the 24-105L. I figure that if I want a light travel combo, my "point and shoot" will be the T2i and the 18-55IS. Otherwise, I figure that I can do all that I want with the longer lens and the Tokina wide lens.
I ordered the white box version from Adorama. I knew about this before my original post, but thanks for mentioning it. I figured that if I got the 15-85, I'd still need to get a hood, and the price would be comparable to that for the 17-40L as it is sold. If I got the 17-40L, I'd probably want to order a new hood, and then the price would be close to the 24-105L.
I also thought that the real L lens would complement the lens drink cup that my daughter got for me a couple of years ago.
I hope that the lens works as well as the reviews say that it does.