Canon 24-105 or Sigma 24-70?

looking to add to my lens collection, will be shooting fast action sports, studio/macro work and landscapes give me some insight, thanks!

How about some insight on how you narrowed the choice down to these two? Neither seems exceptionally good for the uses you listed. Both seem like general purpose answers to a three-pronged specific question. Neither of them improves on your 70-200 for sports or close-up work. Both fill the bill for studio stuff, but better is available. And you already have a highly regarded wide lens for landscapes. Color me confused.

Fast-action sports: EF 70-200 f/2.8 or Tamron 70-200 VC
Macro: EF 100 2.8 or 2.8L
Landscapes: Current lens, or 10-22, if you want wide.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16340009
How about some insight on how you narrowed the choice down to these two? Neither seems exceptionally good for the uses you listed. Both seem like general purpose answers to a three-pronged specific question. Neither of them improves on your 70-200 for sports or close-up work. Both fill the bill for studio stuff, but better is available. And you already have a highly regarded wide lens for landscapes. Color me confused.

Fast-action sports: EF 70-200 f/2.8 or Tamron 70-200 VC
Macro: EF 100 2.8 or 2.8L
Landscapes: Current lens, or 10-22, if you want wide.

since i only have the 70-200 and the tokina 11-16, the tokina is on my 7d most of the time, if i got the 24-105 id get the extension tubes to make it a little more decent for macro work, i wouldnt mind using a 24-70/105 for landscapes but a wide angle already does that very well,

ive looked into the 100mm for extremely sharp macro photos, since i just ordered my first studio and it will be here within a week, id rather get a 24-105, incase studio isnt for me i can walk away with a more useful lens

In that case, the new 24-70 f/4 IS is a likely (but expensive) candidate. It has newer IS than the 24-105 and it is notably sharper, and has a LOT less distortion at the wide end. Since you are shooting APSc, the 15-85 is about the best thing going in this range. On APSc, it is a more useful lens than the 24-105, for me anyway.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16340598
In that case, the new 24-70 f/4 IS is a likely (but expensive) candidate. It has newer IS than the 24-105 and it is notably sharper, and has a LOT less distortion at the wide end. Since you are shooting APSc, the 15-85 is about the best thing going in this range. On APSc, it is a more useful lens than the 24-105, for me anyway.

the 24-70 is way out of my price range, the 15-85 is nice, but im nuts for L

You are aware that "L" does not always get you better IQ? The EFs 10-22 is arguably a better lens than either the 16-35 II or the 17-40, if you only consider IQ. The 10-22 will not work on FF, obviously. It has less distortion than the 17-40 and is sharper across the frame than either of the EF offerings. What it is not is f/2.8 (or f/4), weather sealed, or FF compatible.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect if you limit the comparison to IQ, the 15-85 is a better lens than the 24-105. It is sharper with less distortion than the 24-105 on your 7D. The 15-85 also has newer IS. Again, what the 15-85 is not is f/4 and weather protected.

There are a lot of advantages to "L" other than IQ. Most of the time, better IQ comes along for the ride. But, not always. Ponder your priorities before you spend any money.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16340667
You are aware that "L" does not always get you better IQ? The EFs 10-22 is arguably a better lens than either the 16-35 II or the 17-40, if you only consider IQ. The 10-22 will not work on FF, obviously. It has less distortion than the 17-40 and is sharper across the frame than either of the EF offerings. What it is not is f/2.8 (or f/4), weather sealed, or FF compatible.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect if you limit the comparison to IQ, the 15-85 is a better lens than the 24-105. It is sharper with less distortion than the 24-105 on your 7D. The 15-85 also has newer IS. Again, what the 15-85 is not is f/4 and weather protected.

There are a lot of advantages to "L" other than IQ. Most of the time, better IQ comes along for the ride. But, not always. Ponder your priorities before you spend any money.

what I'm looking for is the fastest af with the sharpest iq

17-55 f/2.8 fills your current gap nicely, and is an excellent lens for indoor and outdoor portrait photography.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16340703
what I'm looking for is the fastest af with the sharpest iq

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #16340706
17-55 f/2.8 fills your current gap nicely, and is an excellent lens for indoor and outdoor portrait photography.

Keep in mind that I do not own the 24-105. From reviews and user comments I believe that if you want sharp, you don't want a 24-105. I know two people who use the 17-55, both on the 7D. They really like it.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16340758
Keep in mind that I do not own the 24-105. From reviews and user comments I believe that if you want sharp, you don't want a 24-105. I know two people who use the 17-55, both on the 7D. They really like it.

x2.

The 24-105 is capable of decent sharpness on the 7D but it isn't really anything outstanding.

Personally, if I was you I'd get the 15-85 EF-s. If you really don't like it and want the red ring that badly I'll trade you my 24-105 for it.

Copidosoma wrote in post #16340788
x2.

The 24-105 is capable of decent sharpness on the 7D but it isn't really anything outstanding.

Personally, if I was you I'd get the 15-85 EF-s. If you really don't like it and want the red ring that badly I'll trade you my 24-105 for it.

15-85 or 17-55 now? haha and copidosoma if i get the 15-85 and am not super happy with it, ill consider trading you lol

The 17-55 f2.8 IS is the best NON-L zoom lense canon do. It is nearly as good as the 24-70mk1 for IQ
I have one on a 7D and could not bear to part with it.

john5189 wrote in post #16340813
The 17-55 f2.8 IS is the best NON-L zoom lense canon do. It is nearly as good as the 24-70mk1 for IQ
I have one on a 7D and could not bear to part with it.

Perspective is everything. I prefer the range of the 15-85 to the aperture of the 17-55. As usual, YMMV.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16340801
15-85 or 17-55 now? haha and copidosoma if i get the 15-85 and am not super happy with it, ill consider trading you lol

Actually you would do well with either. Just that the 15-85 gives you a bit more reach.

As above, the 24-105 is a really nice focal range, has IS and a red ring and all that good stuff but it isn't really a super sharp lens (helps alot to stop it down a bit like most lenses). Definitely not on something like a 7D.

Lots of folks look down on the EF-s lenses because they aren't "L". However, the performance of some of them matches and in some cases exceeds that of the L equivalents. I wouldn't overlook them. Even if you do plan to go FF someday, resale on most lenses can get you back most of what you paid for the lens so you really don't lose much.

Constant aperture is more important for me, since I can go full manual and not have my exposure changing while I zoom. This makes post processing much faster in Lightroom. 15-85 would be frustrating to me in that way.

I had the 17-55 f/2.8 on my T2i, but it was too short. I love the 24-105 f/4L on the T2i. It's great on my 1D3 also, especially if it's raining -- sealed system.

AF speed is great on the 24-105. I never see distortion on the wide end because I've enabled lens corrections in Lightroom. The distortion just goes away and is never an issue.

As far as IQ goes, the 24-105 has been great for me. No complaints at all.