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

15-85 for crop

yeah, but when it comes to resale value you can even sell L optics much higher than what you pay for. Unlike 15-85. the wideness difference can be remedied most of the time with backward motion unlike forward zooming by feet requires more danger. LOL.

A lot of opinions here. So to the OP, download a program called exposure plot and run it on all your images taken with the 18-200 and see just how much you are using the 18-24 range with it. If it is significant, then don't get the 24-105 because you will be changing too often between the 10-20 and 24-105.

For me I don't shoot landscapes so I don't need wide often and much much prefer aperture over range when I can afford it at least and this was the reason I bought the 24-105. I use it for my outdoor walk around lens and have added the Sigma 17-50/2.8 for indoor use. I can't stand variable aperture lenses so the 15-85 is something I would not buy. I pretty much will never buy a variable aperture lens again unless it can go to 10mm wide or 400mm long.

Is there any reason the Canon 17-55/2.8 and Sigma 17-50/2.8 are not also on the table? I would think anyone considering the 15-85 and 24-105 should also be looking here too.

Thank you all for your comments. You all have good points. I know it is a difficult choice.
I just like to have an allround lens and liked the versatility of the 18-200. I wish Canon would make a 18-200 f2.8 L.

I did run Exposure Plot on some of my images and it seems that I use both extremes, wide angle and tele, the most.

When looking at pictures here on POTN, Flickr and other places I am not impressed with the 24-105. The 15-85 gets mixed reviews too.

Maybe there are other alternatives?

belias1989 wrote in post #14743239
yeah, but when it comes to resale value you can even sell L optics much higher than what you pay for. Unlike 15-85. the wideness difference can be remedied most of the time with backward motion unlike forward zooming by feet requires more danger. LOL.

Huh? Who would pay more for a used L than it would cost to get a new one? If you look at resales in general, the 15-85 holds its value as well as most L lenses. Your last statement is rarely applicable for the things I shoot. For landscapes I would have to step back hundreds of feet to get the same angle of view i get at 15mm. That could put me in the middle of a lake or off the side of a cliff. No thanks.

I had to make this choice recently, and I wound up getting the 24-105L. I already had the Tokina 12-24F4, and there was little difference in price between the L and the 15-85 when I got the L. If you add in the price of the Canon hood for the 15-85, the L was only an extra $50 or so at the time. I was another person who ordered a white box from Adorama for $829 and it came in a redbox.
I preferred the extra 20mm at the long end, since I already had 12-24 covered. While I would have liked the lens to be lighter, it is a good lens with very good contrast.

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.

Did the same. And I also had the 17-55 in between the 15-85 and the 24-105. Got a bum zoom ring and much dust was an issue. for me. I Couldn't get past the stiff and often catching zoom ring. Don't think they are all like that. I liked the 15-85 more than the 17-55 personally. But never got a change to use it indoors/low lights. Before I got the 24-105, I went to local Canon Dealer and played with it. And yes the build quality alone will make you want it. Cant really go wrong with any of them.

It all depends on the ranges the OP wants to cover with his lenses. The fact of the matter is, depending on which ones he gets, he will be switching lenses to get the long end offered by the 24-105 if he has the 15-85; and, he will be switching lenses to get the short end offered by the 15-85 if he has the 24-105. I lean toward the 15-85; however, with the OP already having a 10-20 it would make more sense for him to get the 24-105.

Now, on to the silly hood issue. I don't like paying extra to buy hoods for lenses that are not supplied with one. We always see the argument, "Canon should provide the hood". First, Canon is in business to make money, period. Second, don't think if a hood was provided you would not be paying more. People who are paying for L lenses that come with hoods are paying for the hood. Canon isn't giving away parts for free. Canon isn't stupid. I'm pretty sure that Canon knows whether or not adding a hood to a lens will cause someone to forego purchasing one of their high-end EF-S lenses in favor a a third party lens which is already several hundred dollars less. I'm pretty sure they've done their market research.

postmand wrote in post #14744101
Thank you all for your comments. You all have good points. I know it is a difficult choice.
I just like to have an allround lens and liked the versatility of the 18-200. I wish Canon would make a 18-200 f2.8 L.

I did run Exposure Plot on some of my images and it seems that I use both extremes, wide angle and tele, the most.

When looking at pictures here on POTN, Flickr and other places I am not impressed with the 24-105. The 15-85 gets mixed reviews too.

Maybe there are other alternatives?

There are other alternatives, but they are either a lot more expensive and heavier or have poorer IQ, or have a more limited focal range. What did you not like about the 24-105?

mwsilver wrote in post #14744289
There are other alternatives, but they are either a lot more expensive and heavier or have poorer IQ, or have a more limited focal range. What did you not like about the 24-105?

My favorite lens on the 7d is the 17-55 IS, the 24-105 doesn't get wide enough to leave it on for me. If you buy a good second hand one it will hold its price should you want to resell it.

The 24-105 is a great lens, you gain L and FF but lose 2.8 and wider angle.

Tough call, the 15-85 is also a great lens, I had that as a kit lens and it was also a step up from what you have. Not good in poor light or indoors though.

Don't worry about dust in the 17-55, firstly you'll never see it in your pics, secondly, if you wanted to stop the build up fit a good UV filter.

I've had mine about 2 years and its very clean for a regularly used lens.

Hope this helps.

Scooby888 wrote in post #14744346
My favorite lens on the 7d is the 17-55 IS, the 24-105 doesn't get wide enough to leave it on for me. If you buy a good second hand one it will hold its price should you want to resell it.

The 24-105 is a great lens, you gain L and FF but lose 2.8 and wider angle.

Tough call, the 15-85 is also a great lens, I had that as a kit lens and it was also a step up from what you have. Not good in poor light or indoors though.

Don't worry about dust in the 17-55, firstly you'll never see it in your pics, secondly, if you wanted to stop the build up fit a good UV filter.

I've had mine about 2 years and its very clean for a regularly used lens.

Hope this helps.

Yeah, the 17-55 is great, but it's one of the lenses I had in mind when I indicated some of the alternatives had more limited focal ranges. The OP must decide what compromises are acceptable.

DanFrank wrote in post #14744207
Before I got the 24-105, I went to local Canon Dealer and played with it. And yes the build quality alone will make you want it.

Yep.

mwsilver wrote in post #14744136
Huh? Who would pay more for a used L than it would cost to get a new one? If you look at resales in general, the 15-85 holds its value as well as most L lenses. Your last statement is rarely applicable for the things I shoot. For landscapes I would have to step back hundreds of feet to get the same angle of view i get at 15mm. That could put me in the middle of a lake or off the side of a cliff. No thanks.

Just look around for a 24-105 that comes with a kit on 5Ds. 15-85 sort of have many negative specially on zoom creep. In the long run, that zoom creep might get worse. Plus it's not weather sealed. Distortion is another factor worth considering on a 15-85 add up the lack of hood which canon sell for a premium. Having a walk around lens in my perception is having more reach as possible more than wide view since if you really want landscape get a tripod and go for your 18-55 kit lens. Constant F4 and the macho red ring - lets face it it's that cool.

Thank you all for your comments. Great forum! I think I have decided on the 15-85.
Both lenses get mixed reviews and I think the 24-105 is best suited for FF and the 15-85 for crop.
I also think I will be more happy with the wide angle of the 15-85 and a 70-200 F4 for the long reach.

postmand wrote in post #14751617
Thank you all for your comments. Great forum! I think I have decided on the 15-85.
Both lenses get mixed reviews and I think the 24-105 is best suited for FF and the 15-85 for crop.
I also think I will be more happy with the wide angle of the 15-85 and a 70-200 F4 for the long reach.

That's what I got for my 7D and I really like the combo.

Greg.