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

klimraamkosie wrote in post #14742263
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.

Yes, random people who've actually owned the lenses. My 17-40 was even better than the 15-85. Here's the #1 Google result for "15-85 versus L":

http://www.parkcamper.​com …sus-17-40L-comparison.htm

The 15-85 doesn't do so hot. That's not even mentioning the lens creep issue. That's not an acceptable "feature" for a lens costing over $600.

klimraamkosie wrote in post #14742263
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.

No body said the 15-85 had bad IQ. Unless I read something wrong. I think either way, he cant go wrong. He can buy the 15-85 for $600 used and 24-105L $715-750 used.

Mike55 wrote in post #14742366
Yes, random people who've actually owned the lenses. My 17-40 was even better than the 15-85. Here's the #1 Google result for "15-85 versus L":

http://www.parkcamper.​com …sus-17-40L-comparison.htm

The 15-85 doesn't do so hot. That's not even mentioning the lens creep issue. That's not an acceptable "feature" for a lens costing over $600.

Whatever lens creep there is may bother some yes, but it generally seems to be a non-issue. And no, the 15-85 isn't a UWA like the 17-40. Comparing the IQ of the 15-85 to the 24-104 is a much better idea.

I'm sure the OP will make up his own mind. I was merely adding my opinion, to look at tests, as well as listen to random experiences. Reading that review should be helpful as well.

Yes, the 15-85 is not a "bad" lens. But it's overpriced. $730 for a variable aperture EF-S lens without lens hood or L build quality? There are so many new kit-parted 24-105's going for $800-$850 on Ebay and Craigslist that I feel you're just getting much more lens for your money.

Let's just say the optics are a wash. Here's what you're getting with the 24-105:

1. Weather-sealing, build quality
2. Full frame capability
3. Constant F4 throughout range
3. Protective pouch
4. L resale value
5. Canon-branded lens hood.

To me, that's worth an extra $100. IMHO, the 15-85 IS is a $450 lens.

Mike55 wrote in post #14742444
Yes, the 15-85 is not a "bad" lens. But it's overpriced. $730 for a variable aperture EF-S lens without lens hood or L build quality? There are so many new kit-parted 24-105's going for $800-$850 on Ebay and Craigslist that I feel you're just getting much more lens for your money.

Let's just say the optics are a wash. Here's what you're getting with the 24-105:

1. Weather-sealing, build quality
2. Full frame capability
3. Constant F4 throughout range
3. Protective pouch
4. L resale value
5. Canon-branded lens hood.

To me, that's worth an extra $100. IMHO, the 15-85 IS is a $450 lens.

But you are missing wide end with just one lens and plus not changing lenses is great and priceless to many including me considering traveling light and walk around lens. Your 6 points though are valid, that's just being nitpicky. Who gives a sh!t about red ring.

Mike55 wrote in post #14742444
Yes, the 15-85 is not a "bad" lens. But it's overpriced. $730 for a variable aperture EF-S lens without lens hood or L build quality? There are so many new kit-parted 24-105's going for $800-$850 on Ebay and Craigslist that I feel you're just getting much more lens for your money.

Let's just say the optics are a wash. Here's what you're getting with the 24-105:

1. Weather-sealing, build quality
2. Full frame capability
3. Constant F4 throughout range
3. Protective pouch
4. L resale value
5. Canon-branded lens hood.

To me, that's worth an extra $100. IMHO, the 15-85 IS is a $450 lens.

Apples to apples please.

So you're saying that second hand you can get the 24-105 for $800. And it's benefits are worth $100. So if you can find a 15-85 for less than $700 you're even? I guess that wouldn't be too hard if you also grab a second hand 15-85. You can get them easily for $550.

Lets see, 1, 3 is valid. The rest do not matter. A hood, really ($35 new)? He doesn't have a full frame camera, so whatever that's worth is wasted.

Here's what you're getting with the 15-85:

1. Less weight (20%).
2. Less price (40% new, 45% used).
3. MUCH better range.
4. No wasted glass ($) for full frame capability.
5. Non-constant aperture.

#3 is really all that counts IMO. The range just doesn't compete.

If he doesn't need the wide end, the 24-105 is a spectacular lens. He should go for it. If he does need the wide end (and doesn't want to spend a 40% premium for glass he won't use with his body) then the 15-85 is the right choice.

I'm glad you enjoy your 24-105 (if you own one), it's a great lens.

Mike55 wrote in post #14742444
Yes, the 15-85 is not a "bad" lens. But it's overpriced. $730 for a variable aperture EF-S lens without lens hood or L build quality? There are so many new kit-parted 24-105's going for $800-$850 on Ebay and Craigslist that I feel you're just getting much more lens for your money.

Let's just say the optics are a wash. Here's what you're getting with the 24-105:

1. Weather-sealing, build quality
2. Full frame capability
3. Constant F4 throughout range
3. Protective pouch
4. L resale value
5. Canon-branded lens hood.

To me, that's worth an extra $100. IMHO, the 15-85 IS is a $450 lens.

First, to say the 15-85 is a $450 lens is kind of silly. What new $450 lens has the range, IQ, build quality, FTMF, and USM focusing motor of this lens? What $500 lens? In fact, what $600 lens? I don't know if you ever owned one, but most people who have a 15-85mm think its a tremendous lens and worth every penny. The overwhelming number of people who criticize it as overpriced have never actually owned one themselves.

I got mine on sale at Abes of Maine in January for $645 with the Canon rebate. It was a bargain!

Mind you, I not suggesting its superior to the 24-105, but its a great lens. It goes wide on a crop body, the 24-105 does not. Yes the 15-85 is slow, but at a constant f4, the 24-105 is not exactly a speed demon. And the 24-105's IS will only provide 3 stops of stabilization, the 15-85 is rated as 4 stops and its IS has generally be praised as one of the most effective in the Canon lineup.

As to your points, yes the 24-105 is weather sealed, but not completely unless you use a front filter, which many do not. Yes, its full frame compatible, where its probably at its best. A constant F4 is not that impressive. Now if it was a f2.8, well that's a different story. Protective pouch? Do most owners really care about that? You speak of the L resale value. Have you seen the prices that a used 15-85m gets. It retains it value just as well as a 24-105. With regard to your final point about the branded hood, granted it cheap of Canon to not include one. I bought a Canon hood for it and at $35 it was expensive for a small piece of plastic that should have been included in the price of the lens. But I've gotten over that annoyance and in the end, I couldn't be happier. This lens has exceeded my expectations and lives on my 60D most of the time.

ateet wrote in post #14742569
But you are missing wide end with just one lens and plus not changing lenses is great and priceless to many including me considering traveling light and walk around lens.

But you are gaining 20mm on the long end. To me, a walkaround lens is one that I can do events with, portraits, etc. I don't care about UWA on awalkaround lens. Wide angle is for tripod work.

I have the 24-105 on my crop and found it too short for me... Now I have a 70-200. All depends what you like. I think 10-20 is next on my list. Between that and the 70-200 I may not need anything inbetween but that's the way I shoot. Survey your focal lengths in explorer (you can add that column in list view and sort by it). See what you use most.

24-105 is a great lens. F4 sucks indoors w/ out a flash though, but then you can push ISO harder than my body can without too much noise.

klimraamkosie wrote in post #14742639
Apples to apples please.

So you're saying that second hand you can get the 24-105 for $800. And it's benefits are worth $100. So if you can find a 15-85 for less than $700 you're even? I guess that wouldn't be too hard if you also grab a second hand 15-85. You can get them easily for $550.

Lets see, 1, 3 is valid. The rest do not matter. A hood, really ($35 new)? He doesn't have a full frame camera, so whatever that's worth is wasted.

Here's what you're getting with the 15-85:

1. Less weight (20%).
2. Less price (40% new, 45% used).
3. MUCH better range.
4. No wasted glass ($) for full frame capability.
5. Non-constant aperture.

#3 is really all that counts IMO. The range just doesn't compete.

No offense, but this is a nonsensical reply.

Less wight? Who cares? This is a zoom lens for a DSLR, not a pocket camera.

"Wasted glass?" So not having the ability to work on FF and crop is somehow a negative? Weird.

Let's not forget the inferior build quality. I've owned both lenses, the 15-85 is nowhere near the 24-105.

the point about the $850 24-105 is quite simple. Why spend $730 + hood on a new EF-S lens when you can get a new (yes, new) 24-105 for $850 on Craigslist or Ebay?

Mike55 wrote in post #14742855
But you are gaining 20mm on the long end. To me, a walkaround lens is one that I can do events with, portraits, etc. I don't care about UWA on awalkaround lens. Wide angle is for tripod work.

In practical use, the extra 20mm on the long end is not nearly as significant a difference as going from 24mm to 15mm on the wide end. On the long end you get a bit more magnification, but on the wide end the field of view at 15mm is absolutely huge when compared to the view at 24mm. Even when comparing 15mm to 18mm the difference is significant.

Mike55 wrote in post #14742870
No offense, but this is a nonsensical reply.

Less wight? Who cares? This is a zoom lens for a DSLR, not a pocket camera.

"Wasted glass?" So not having the ability to work on FF and crop is somehow a negative? Weird.

Let's not forget the inferior build quality. I've owned both lenses, the 15-85 is nowhere near the 24-105.

the point about the $850 24-105 is quite simple. Why spend $730 + hood on a new EF-S lens when you can get a new (yes, new) 24-105 for $850 on Craigslist or Ebay?

Does the new lens on craigslist for $850 come with a warranty? Second, the reason to get the 15-85 over the 24-105 is clear and simple. Its the focal range. 24mm is simply not wide enough for me, and the purpose of a walk around lens is to avoid having to swap out lenses. If I go FF, I would get the 24-105 in a heartbeat. If it was an 18-105 I would probably get it for a crop camera.

f/4 vs 3.5 - 5.6 and what focal lengths you want/need should be the determining factor. Both lenses will produce terrific "IQ" when used well, so that's sort of a thin qualifier.

I swapped out the 17-50 f/2.8 for the 24-105 and I don't miss it at all.

Snydremark wrote in post #14742917
f/4 vs 3.5 - 5.6 and what focal lengths you want/need should be the determining factor. Both lenses will produce terrific "IQ" when used well, so that's sort of a thin qualifier.

I swapped out the 17-50 f/2.8 for the 24-105 and I don't miss it at all.

Agree.

The fact is every advantage is subjective and impossible to generalize. The 15mm range isn't better if you don't need it, same for the 105mm long range or constant f/4 aperture. It all depends on what you prefer and what will be better for each person. Every lens is a compromise since it doesn't offer whatever it doesn't have.

I chose the 15-85 over the 24-105 (and 17-55).
The 15mm range was more important to me than the 105mm range.
f/4 would have been nice, but not important enough to sacrifice the (for me worse) zoom range. I don't really use the lens in any situation that f/4 instead of f/5.6 is significant (I often shoot in very dark conditions but use primes since even f/2.8 would not be so good).
The build of the 15-85 is not as good IMO, but it is also significantly less expensive.
I liked the IQ sligthly more on the 15-85 but it's a tiny difference that is probably insignificant in a real situation.
The IS is excellent and one of the best on the 15-85.
This lens is likely to get zoom creep in the 35-50 range, which is not really important if you don't point it almost up or down, which I do, so it's a bit annoying but has enough advantages for me that outweigh this issue.

In the end you have to look at each of these advantages and disadvantages and decide what is important to you.

One last thing, about the lens hood. The 15-85 doesn't come with one. I bought a non-original lens hood from ebay for about $3 (maybe it was $5 with shipping, can't remember). It is IDENTICAL (I'll repeat that, IDENTICAL) to the Canon lens hood, except it doesn't say Canon on it. That's the ONLY difference. I would probably never buy an original Canon lens hood and would be happy for a $35 discount on any lens without the hood if it was possible (of course that woudl never happen since when you're buying a lens with a hood included you're actually paying their cost of the hood, not their seperate retail price of the hood alone).