Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 vs. Canon 24-105 f/4L

Before anyone thinks that I am trying to compare oranges & apples here, let me briefly explain. After considerable perusal of reviews & comments on these 2 lenses, I have concluded that both have their respective strengths & weaknesses. Based upon my personal preference ranking, I think that either of these lenses would work well for me.

However, according to all that I have read, image quality appears to result in a virtual tie for these lenses. Not being a guy who makes a decision on lens purchase by rolling the dice, I am hoping that some of you (who have had experience with both of these lenses) might offer me some insight on the IQ of these lenses.

BTW, the lens will be used on a Canon 60D as a walk-around lens for travel photography. Again, it is IQ (as opposed to focal length & other considerations) that I am concerned about.

Thank you most kindly.

I have both lenses but I don't use the 24-105 on my 7D because I find the 24-105 is not wide enough for what I generally shoot. (it is of course wide enough on the 5D Mk II)

As far as Image Quality I would say they are about equal when used on the 7D. I find the 7D/15-85 combo slightly sharper than the 5D Mk II/24-105 combo, but I also find the FF gives a slight advantage in overall Image Quality. (sounds confusing doesn't it?)

If you already have an Ultra-Wide, and have no need for 15mm, then I would say get the 24-105 for it's better build quality and Red ring.

If you want to take travel pics of buildings and such, you will def appreciate the 15mm. Even the 18mm is sometimes too tele for crops. I use the 15-85 all the time when I travel and I love it (other than it being slow).

Thank you, Mike. I'm not really concerned about the 24-105 on my crop 60D since I have the 10-22 lens. So I am back to IQ. Your comments suggest that both lenses have comparable IQ with a slight nod toward the 24-105. If that continues to be the consensus among owners of these lenses, than my purchasing decision will gravitate toward other factors.

You can't evaluate a purchase like this based upon image quality alone. There's much more too it than that and there just isn't a distinct advantage one way or the other, between these particular lenses.

For use on 60D, I'd get the EF-S 15-85mm. It just seems a better match for the crop camera. It's a reasonably compact lens on a fairly compact camera. The 24-105 isn't particularly big, but it is bigger and heavier than the 15-85.

IQ should be fine.... check out some of the reviews of the lens. There are a number of them on the Internet. The Digital Picture's review here, allows you to do a number of head-to-head comparisons, such as their ISO 12233 crops and other image quality factors. You can compare the 15-85 directly with the 24-105 at 24, 35, 50 and 70mm... in some examples both on 60D.

To me it looks like the 15-85 has less chromatic aberration at 24mm, while the 24-105 has less at 70mm. But neither has a whole lot of CA. The 15-85 seems to handle flare better at the focal lengths they share. The 24-105 is known to have strong corner vignetting at the wide end (nearly 3 stops wide open at 24mm, one of the worst Canon lenses for this, though it's largely correctible in post processing or with Peripheral Illumination Correction in camera). But most of that vignetting is cropped away when you use the FF lens on a crop camera. The 15-85 appears to have slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm, but the two are nearly identical at other focal lengths they share.

The 15-85mm plus it's matched lens hood (sold separately) cost $670 on Amazon. The 24-105mm costs $1050. So you have to ask yourself, would $380 be useful toward something else you need? Or, is the red stripe worth an extra $380?

It also depends upon what other lenses you have. The 24-105 would fit into my kit better because I use a 12-24mm ultrawide and I use both crop and full frame cameras. But if you don't have an ultrawide zoom at all or have an 11-16 or 8-16mm, the 15-85 might complement the rest of your kit better.

If you plan to switch to full frame camera soon, or add one to your kit, the 24-105 might make more sense. But, frankly, I think full frame is vastly over-hyped here and on other blogs... Crop sensor cameras today come awfully close to FF image quality for most peoples uses.

I have both lenses and I agree that 15-85 is a great choice for a 60D. It has a great range, excellent IS and is very sharp. 24-105 is also a very good lens, but I prefer it for FF.

I own both and shoot them both on crop cameras.

The 15-85 loses IQ wise to the 24-105L, especially on the wide end off-center. The difference is readily visible if pixel-peeping but isn't something you'll growl over in prints or viewing full images.

Of course the 24-105 doesn't do 15, so it loses infinitely if wider than 24mm is required.

The other side of that is that the 15-85 loses infinitely if narrower than 85mm is required

The difference in size and weight is pretty material too and then there's price.

Finally the 24-105L takes a short extension tube pretty nicely and results in both a good magnification change and reasonable working distance, while IS makes the combination reasonably hand-holdable. My experience with the 15-85 and the same tube is less favorable -- it works but the working distance becomes really short. So if you want to carry around the 12mm extension tube and get into the 0.5x macro range while retaining autofocus and exposure you want the 24-105. That loses to a real macro lens of course if you're willing to buy (and carry) one instead......

I like owning both. If I'm willing to carry TWO lenses or expect no need for wide beyond the 24mm end, and especially if I think I might want to shoot "mild" macro stuff then I prefer the 24-105. If I am looking for a small, light, wide-range kit for the day's shooting and do NOT want to carry anything other than the camera with one lens on it the 15-85 wins.

If I HAD to sell one I'd sell the 24-105, but that's only because I also own a 70-200, which has exceptional IQ. If I didn't own the 70-200 then it would be a much, much more difficult decision. For my use I find that 24 is usually wide enough for what I shoot on a crop. That is, I run out of long end on the 15-85 more often than I run out of short end on the 24-105. YMMV; much depends on what you tend to point the camera at.

In short consider which end you're more likely to run out of given what you shoot, and then consider that the 24-105 is larger, heavier and more expensive. What you get for all that is compatibility with FF if you ever move to one in the future and (IMHO) somewhat better IQ.

OK, for a crop body only this is a tough call. One thing experience with travel has taught me is I usually tend to walk out with 2 lenses in my shoulder bag anyway. If you dislike having to swap lenses all the time I would say go the 15-85, it is more versatile, but if you don’t mind swapping and don’t mind the 24mm on the short end I would say go the 24-105. I travelled quite a bit with a 10-22 / 15-85 combo and they covered most stuff. Since buying a 24-105 though I find it requires less PP and images sooc are better. So it really comes down to the hassle of swapping more.

Thank you, everyone, for the thoughtful comments. It has been a good reaffirmation of the way I have been thinking about this decision.

Considering the attributes & downsides of the 2 lenses, I have been leaning toward the Canon 15-85mm. I originally posed my question to see if (contrary to past reviews) users felt there were any significant differences in IQ. For me personally, considering the lens I own as well as the advantages of the Canon 24-105mm over the 15-85mm, the price differential is not justified. (And for me, the visibility of a "red ring" has no value).

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts & experiences. Much appreciated!

If you already have the 10-22 go for the 24-105.
I have both of these on a 7D, my Dad has a 15-85, which is a good lens.

The reason I say go for the 24-105 is because the 15-85 & 10-22 have a pretty big overlap (7mm at the wide end is *loads*), so you are doubling up there on an existing lens. Then at the long end you've got an extra 20mm. Its also quicker at the long end.
If you didn't have the 10-22 I might of given a different answer, but as it is I think 24-105 is the wa to go. See if you can find a "white box" lens to save a few bucks.

kitjv wrote in post #15491869
Before anyone thinks that I am trying to compare oranges & apples here, let me briefly explain. After considerable perusal of reviews & comments on these 2 lenses, I have concluded that both have their respective strengths & weaknesses. Based upon my personal preference ranking, I think that either of these lenses would work well for me.

However, according to all that I have read, image quality appears to result in a virtual tie for these lenses. Not being a guy who makes a decision on lens purchase by rolling the dice, I am hoping that some of you (who have had experience with both of these lenses) might offer me some insight on the IQ of these lenses.

BTW, the lens will be used on a Canon 60D as a walk-around lens for travel photography. Again, it is IQ (as opposed to focal length & other considerations) that I am concerned about.

Thank you most kindly.

I don't have too much o add. Most of the previous posts have hit all the highlights and you've apparently researched opinions on this site. Peripheral to image quality is the ability to actually get the shots in the first place. While the 24-105, at f/4 is faster, its still not a fast lens. The 15-85 is still at f/4.5 at around 35 mm and is faster at 24 mm and wider. More importantly, especially in low light situations, the Canon 15-85 has 4 stops of IS vs 3 stops of IS for the 24-105. Blurry vs non blurry is definitely an IQ issue. Finally, many members who own or have used both have indicated that IQ is very close with almost as many posters indicating that the 15-85 has better IQ, as the other way around.

Crafty wrote in post #15492591
If you already have the 10-22 go for the 24-105.
I have both of these on a 7D, my Dad has a 15-85, which is a good lens.

The reason I say go for the 24-105 is because the 15-85 & 10-22 have a pretty big overlap (7mm at the wide end is *loads*), so you are doubling up there on an existing lens. Then at the long end you've got an extra 20mm. Its also quicker at the long end.
If you didn't have the 10-22 I might of given a different answer, but as it is I think 24-105 is the wa to go. See if you can find a "white box" lens to save a few bucks.

If the OP is out and about and doesn't mind carrying and changing lenses, I would agree, If however, he wants to travel light and not miss any shots on the wide end, the 15-85 might be a better match. Now if they could just come up with a low distortion 15-135mm f/2.8 that didn't weigh a ton and costs less than a car.

Crafty wrote in post #15492591
If you already have the 10-22 go for the 24-105.
I have both of these on a 7D, my Dad has a 15-85, which is a good lens.

The reason I say go for the 24-105 is because the 15-85 & 10-22 have a pretty big overlap (7mm at the wide end is *loads*), so you are doubling up there on an existing lens. Then at the long end you've got an extra 20mm. Its also quicker at the long end.
If you didn't have the 10-22 I might of given a different answer, but as it is I think 24-105 is the wa to go. See if you can find a "white box" lens to save a few bucks.

Point well-taken, Crafty. As always, the final decision rests on my shoulders based upon my personal criteria. Nevertheless, dialog like this is invaluable.

I suspect that when I mull over all this information with a good bottle of Oregon pinot noir that the obvious answer will percolate to the surface.

Salud!

On the crop body the 15-85 seems a better walkaround option. As people have pointed out your range is covered with other lenses, as if overlap is a problem. But there are times when a single lens and body are desirable for a hike around town or trail. The ability to go reasonably wide to short tele is helpful.

mwsilver wrote in post #15492630
Now if they could just come up with a low distortion 15-135mm f/2.8 that didn't weigh a ton and costs less than a car.

I'd settle for a 15-105. lol

I couldn't decide between the two lenses and I bought the 15-85mm. It's a fine lens but I should have got the 24-105mm because I almost never use the 15-24mm range. Newb mistake, so from now on I'm going to rent lenses before I buy them.