How good is the 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM?

Is it a decently sharp lens, or poor?


Need a decently priced W/A-zoom lens for my 20D/other EF mount bodies.

I would like to get the sharpest lens possible for under $300

On the 20D, not bad. On a larger sensor, the weaknesses show up near the edges. I had one on my XT. Tried it on the 1D Mk II and I was not impressed.

I actually believe that the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a sharper lens, but 28 just isn't very wide on the 20D.

http://emedia.leeward.​hawaii.edu …/toolbox2.htm#2​4-85Anchor

check out this review for a nice all around compro. I think you will find all of them to be about the same. You could look at other 3rd party glass too, but the Canon USM-FT-M ring system is worth so much more to me that I would stick to Eos EF lenses.

I think the 24-85mm was updated when the D30 was launched so it is likely the best bet for a general use lens on a 20D 1.6x sensor next to the 17-85 IS lens.

I was unhappy with the FOV from the 28-105 on my 300D, but I love the FOV from my 24-70 on the 300D, I find 24mm ideal (on 1.6x), no wide angle distortion that even a good 17(18)mm lens will give you but still wide enough to be useful indoors.

I have this lens, and it's a fine consumer lens, decently sharp and contrasty. I also have the 28-105 and I think the two lenses are comparable. I don't think you would be disappointed with this lens.

Mark

Have a look here https://photography-on-the.net …d.php?p=979696#​post979696

I was quite happy with 24-85. But I bought 24-105 L.

I probably could have stated my opinion a bit better. Canon's mid-range zooms do offer great color and contrast, and that includes the 24-85 and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lenses. They will both perform admirably on the 1.6X sensor.

The weak spot on the 24-85 is the corners, and you don't see or use those corners on the 20D. I kept it on my XT almost all the time, and I was satisfied with its performance there.

i used one for a while on a 300D and it performed very well on it.

like said before as long as it's used on a 1.6 body it will perform great.

I have one of these and I think it's pretty respectable for the money. Build quality is not bad, much better than the kit lenses. Check out this link for lab tests:-

http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_2485_3545​/index.htm

Conclusion was:

"The Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite mixed performance. On the upside the lens is very sharp with very little vignetting throughout the range. Unfortunately distortions at 24mm are pretty hefty as are chromatic aberrations. The build quality is pretty decent and the AF performace is a joy. All-in-all the lens is capable to beat the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm as well as the EF-S 17-85mm IS and regarding sharpness it can even rival the the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L (on APS-C). If the focal length range was more attractive here the lens would have been a killer but as such it is just a good compromise."

Here's a couple of recent pics from mine.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I used a 24-85 on my EOS film body for 4 years and was very happy with it. When I got the 20D, I felt it wasn't wide enough... For sharpness, it was good enough when stopped down, but a little soft wide open.

I sold it a few months back after getting a 17-40 and then a 17-85.

If you get a good used one, the unheralded Canon 24-85mm is a very useful "f/8 and be there" lens. This is certainly sharp enough, 20D handheld @f/6.3, and starting to get some creative background blur:
http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …/slides/TurbOTi​ll%204.htm
Even though I own expensive glass, I still use my trusty 24-85 (bought used) for on-the-go photo essay story type work, like this:
http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …eetCorn_Packing​/index.htm

Why will you get a lot of use from this lens?
1. Because the 24-85 is more than decent quality, available on Forums and on eBay with the hood for $220+/-. If you had oodles of money you'd buy something else.
2. Because Canon's 24-70 is frequently not long enough and the alternative Tamron 28-75 is not long enough. I am one of those photographers who is just "never close enough." Having 85 helps in big areas when you do not want to intrude on the subject's space.
3. Because the Tamron at 28mm is not wide enough, nor is the Canon 28-105, but 24mm is "just right" on a 20D for most wider, though not true wide angle, uses.
4. Because I almost never shoot wide open, or even low f/stops. If light gets low, the flash comes out and then a faster f/stop lens offers little. If I need ambient light photos, the 85 f/1.8 comes out.
5. Because purchased used, it can be knocked about on trips, vehicles, etc. without worry.

Do not buy the Canon 24-85mm if:
1. You are a serious paid urban scene shooter with lots of architecture buildings near edges of the scene. This lens at 24mm, even on a 20D, you will readily see bulging distortion of straight edges. For most amateur photography this just does not matter. Nobody cares.
2. You are a serious landscape photographer who needs true wide angle near-far, thing-in-its-environment, or panoramic vistas. On a 20D you need a real wide angle lens for this, like a Tokina 17mm, Tokina 12-24, Canon, etc.
3. You take photos and portraits seriously where you want creative defocus blur of background behind the subject or portrait. This is not the lens for that.

Well, that's one user's opinion. Jack

How is this for sharpness?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Could someone 'splain why I have two images coming up when I attach an image?

Thanks!

You're enclosing a link to the attachment in [IMG] tags.If you attach it, you don't need the [IMG] tag; if you want the attached image in the body of the message, rather than hanging on at the end, enclose the attachment number in [ATTACH] tags. See also tommykjenson's thread here.

I've used this as a general purpose lens on my 350D and have been very happy with the quality. 24mm is just wide enough most of the time for my current style on a 1.6 camera and 85mm is very useful. The lens appears to be sharp and colourful and with PTlens, distortions are not much of a problem. Haven't noticed flare. As an indication, all images in this gallery are from the lens.
http://www.pbase.com/a​bat/august_2005

Thanks for the thread...............

Alex