24-105 vs 15-85 on 7D: Help me choose

Hi, I am a happy 7D user looking for some advice for upgrading my walk-around lens.

I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS that served me well on my 450D but now it just isn't doing my 7D justice. I also have a 50mm 1.8 II and a Sigma 10-20mm.

I am torn between the 24-105L and the 15-85. IQ, sharpness etc looks pretty much the same - or am I overlooking something? My main concern is image quality and versatility.

"Environmental sealing" on the 24-105 and the fact is an L lens is nice.
The price and shorter FL on the 15-85 is also nice. (Then I might even have money for a 70-200 F4 non-IS too)

Please help me decide...

If your planning to go full frame anytime soon, then the 24-105, otherwise the 15-85 is better on the crop

I had the 15-85 and the 17-55 (different times) sold both for the 24-105L and the 70-200 non IS. I liked the 15-85 and the 17-55, IQ was about the same. I didn't like dust with the 17-55. Plus with mine, I had a very stiff zoom ring which I didn't care for. Ive been hearing once you go "L" you'll never go back. Both my new lens should arrive tomorrow. But the 15-85 is a solid lens and so is the 17-55. Nice thing is if you buy used and you want to try a different lens out later one, its not to hard to sell it and buy something different, and not lose money. Just my 0.02

I have both 15-85 and 24-105. 15-85 is a much better all purpose lens for the 7d. 24 mm is not wide enough on a crop camera.

If you don't mind switching lenses and shooting f5.6 on the long end of the Sigma 10-20, I would go with the 24-105! On the other hand, if you need a faster aperture shooting on the wide end and dont mind shooting f5.6 on the long end, go for the 15-85!

Of course, if you find yourself on the long end of the Sigma 18-200 a lot, might be worth getting the 15-85 and the 70-200.

I owned both of them for my 7D. I kept the 24-105. Why? Well, I got mine for $500 in the 5D II kit deal and to be honest it's just a better lens.

I find my 24-105 consistently sharper and to have better colors. Plus, it's just built better. I also prefer the range. When I think of "walk around" I think of that 20mm (on crop) to 100mm (on crop also). I'm often using foot zoom or lens zoom when walking around.

Less than 20mm for me is "tripod time". And in this case I prefer a lens that goes from 10mm to 20mm.

I found the 15-85 to have inconsistent IQ (especially on the edges), to have a slight dimness, to have substandard vignetting, to have lens barrel creep (come on, really?). The lens just did not provide confidence.

Now my setup is the 24-105 IS and Sigma 10-20. Both are matched with top end CP's. The 24-105 stays on my camera constantly. It's good for landscape, portraits, events, and even big wildlife like bison, moose, or horses.

I also prefer the constant aperture. I do not care for variable aperture lenses.

The 24-105 is just in another league than the 15-85, and they are way too close in price. You can find new 24-105's on Craigslist for $800. My father bought a white box (parted from kit)for $850 at Adorama that turned out to b brand new in a red box, lol.

The lens also uses a 77mm front end, which matches my other lenses.

I'd much rather pay $850 for a kit-parted 24-105 on Craigslsit (make sure you get the warranty) then spend $734 on Amazon for the 15-85. Plus, you're getting a lens hood and a nice pouch, too.

Canon is making a mistake by pricing these EF-S lenses too close to L lenses. Their EF-S lenses feel floppy and wobbly, and I don't think any of them should be priced over $600.

The 15-85 is an extremely useful range on a crop sensor camera like yours. I have been very satisfied with the optical quality of mine. I have not used a 24-105 because the focal length range is not a particularly useful one for what I do with a crop sensor camera.

Re this:

The marketing folks at Canon must love it when people say these things. An L lens is still just a lens. Lots of non-L lenses are superb.

postmand wrote in post #14741539
Hi, I am a happy 7D user looking for some advice for upgrading my walk-around lens.

I currently have a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS that served me well on my 450D but now it just isn't doing my 7D justice. I also have a 50mm 1.8 II and a Sigma 10-20mm.

I am torn between the 24-105L and the 15-85. IQ, sharpness etc looks pretty much the same - or am I overlooking something? My main concern is image quality and versatility.

"Environmental sealing" on the 24-105 and the fact is an L lens is nice.
The price and shorter FL on the 15-85 is also nice. (Then I might even have money for a 70-200 F4 non-IS too)

Please help me decide...

Everyone's comments have been on target, so it really comes down to your needs On a crop, the 15-85's long end will give you a FF equivalent angle of view of 136mm, the 24-105 will give you ans equivalent of !68mm. Not a huge difference in practice. On the wide end, though, the 15-85 is significantly and very noticeably wider than the 24-105. You need to review what you shoot and what your goals are. Much of what I shoot are landscapes and as a result the focal range between 15 and 24 mm is extremely important to me, and much if what I shoot on vacation seems to fall in that range as well. If 24mm is wide enough for you, go with the 24-105.

touji wrote in post #14741680
If you don't mind switching lenses and shooting f5.6 on the wide end, I would go with the 24-105! On the other hand, if you need a faster aperture shooting on the wide end and dont mind shooting f5.6 on the long end, go for the 15-85!

Of course, if you find yourself on the long end of the Sigma 18-200 a lot, might be worth getting the 15-85 and the 70-200.

I think you meant f4 on the wide end for the 24-105, not f5.6. And while at 15mm the 15-85 is a bit faster at f3.5, by the time it reaches 24mm, its also at f4. At around 25-26mm it goes to f4.5

I should have clarified! I meant shooting on the wide end of the Sigma 10-20. My woopsies.

I have had the 15-85 and I have a 24-105. Leaving out the focal length for a second out of the 2 I would pick the 24-105. Bringing the focal length into play with only a crop body I would probably go the other way. If you teamed your 10-20 with the 15-85 then added the 70-200 you mentioned you would have a nice range.

touji wrote in post #14742092
I should have clarified! I meant shooting on the wide end of the Sigma 10-20. My woopsies.

OK Got it. Cool.

Er... meant long end, long end of the Sigma 10-20!! I can't speak / put my thoughts into words today.

touji wrote in post #14742127
Er... meant long end, long end of the Sigma 10-20!! I can't speak / put my thoughts into words today.

I figured out what you meant.

Sigma 10-20's IQ isn't as good as the 15-85. And you'd have to change lenses when you want to go wider than 24... That's not necessary with the great IQ of the 15-85.

15-85 is a crop lens for a reason, 15mm. 24mm is not enough on a crop and you'll soon be unhappy with it.

Please compare the IQ of both lenses before you listen to random people saying that the 15-85 doesn't have good IQ. It is one of Canon's best lenses in terms of IQ.

And if you want to compare prices compare apples to apples.

Amazon 24-105L: 999.
Amazon 15-85: 734.

That's almost a 40% premium over the 15-85.