Trying to decide between EF 24-105 f.4l IS and the EF-S 15-85 IS

Hi. I'm new here and just wanted to say that this seems like a nice, welcoming place with many helpful people and tons of good info. I look forward to hanging out here.

Years ago, back in the film days, I was an amateur photographer and I've always used Canon equipment. I especially enjoyed travel, landscapes and sports photography. I mainly shot outdoors and rarely used a flash indoors. To the extent I shot people, it was casual/natural, rather than posed. My favorite camera was an AE-1, and I had an FD 20mm lens (still have it, in fact) that I loved for landscapes. Other than that fixed lens, I generally shot with zooms.

Eventually I developed other interests and spent less and less time taking pictures. I tried to rekindle my interest by getting an EOS Elan II and I was limited to the kit lens it came with. I did not take advantage of its many features and didn't have the time or energy to really learn how to use it. Before too long, however, digital photography was coming along and I again lost interest.

Times and circumstances have changed for me and I'm getting back into photography again. I got a 40D over a year or so ago, and have been slowly getting to know it. I mainly use it when traveling, and my interests in shooting are still pretty much the same as they were when I first started with AE-1. I do most of my shooting on vacation and most of it is outdoor scenes and landscapes. I still generally like shooting with zooms.

Until now, I have been using the EF 28-80 kit zoom from my Elan, and I am not happy with the results. I will soon have the opportunity to spend more time traveling, re-learning photography and taking pictures and I'm ready to upgrade lenses. I've pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 10-22 as my wide angle lens. I'm going to buy one other lens that will pretty much be my "normal" lens. I'm debating between the EF-24-105 f.4l and the EF-S 15-85 F3.5-5.6. Both lens seems to get very good reviews.

I think I'm leaning towards the 24-105 for the following reasons: fixed f.4; less overlap with the 10-22, longer telephoto range. The disadvantages, as compared to the 15-85, is the gap between the where the 10-22 ends and the 24-105 really begins, and the price. Considering the types of photos I historically take, does it make sense to save some money and get the 15-85, or will I regret not getting the 24-105?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Too much information O.O

I was faced with the same choice. The 15-85mm is an amazing walk-around for any cropped camera, and it's on sale for $620 shipped through 7/10. I don't plan on switching to a FF body in the near (or possibly remote) future, so the choice was clear. The 24-105 is also a 4-year older design. The weather sealing is attractive though...

I have the 10-22 and the 24-105. Before I got my 7D last month, I was shooting these on my 40D. I love the combo. I think they compliment each other very well. Like you my primary type of photography is landscape, and i find myself using both with good results. The 24-105 can be very useful on distant subjects, and especially if you see yourself taking multi-shot panos.

I can't speak to the 15-15 as I have never used it, but I am very happy with the combo I have.

If you have an UWA like the 10-22 or Tokina 11-16, then I also recommend the 24-105. You get constant F/4 instead of variable 3.5-5.6 and extra reach 85-105mm. I first experienced this lens on my 5d, and found that it is also very nice on a crop as well. 24mm isn't that bad, especially when you have the option of using the 10-22.

If you have 10-22, the right choice is 24-105L. You don't need 15-85mm at all in such combination.

I would go with the 24-105. It has the constant aperature and extra 20mm on the long side. It will pair perfectly with your 10-22. A lot of overlap between the 15-85 & 10-22.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10480936
Too much information O.O

The 24-105 is also a 4-year older design.

And the problem with that would be what?

The 24-105 is an amazingly sharp lens, regardless of when it hit the market.

I have both of these lenses (15/85 and 24/105). For crop, I would probably get the 15-85. However, for full frame the 24-105 is excellent. Can't go wrong with either.

As much as I like the 15-85 on my 7D, I wonder the practicality of owning both, so I may eventually sell off my EF-S glass which is down to the 15-85 and 55-250.

I disagree with those who say that because you have 10-22 you don't need 15-85. The whole point of a walkaround lens is for 'one lens' convenience. 15-85 covers indoor scenarios on a crop camera much better than 24-105. If you don't see a need for that and like a moderate tele better than by all means go 24-105, but overlap should not be a big part of the argument. If 24-105 is a desirable range on FF (and it is) than 15-85 should be equally desirable on crop. If 24-105 is a great range on crop than why does nobody (or very few at least) call out for 38-160 lenses for FF?

I Love my 24 to 105L. It has travelled to Europe and just returned with me from Africa. It was awesome to have that extra reach above the 85mm. I use it on my both my 30D and 1DM3. It is nice to have a fixed aperture. I shoot in A priority primarily so I know what I am getting (depth of field-wise).
Plus the colors from the L glass are so vibrant. Good luck and you won't go wrong with it.

on a crop, its hard to find anything better than the 15-85 as a "walkaround" solution lens. the 24-105 may be good optically, but for a crop body, the range and IQ of the 15-85 is very good.

lungdoc wrote in post #10482491
I disagree with those who say that because you have 10-22 you don't need 15-85. The whole point of a walkaround lens is for 'one lens' convenience. 15-85 covers indoor scenarios on a crop camera much better than 24-105. If you don't see a need for that and like a moderate tele better than by all means go 24-105, but overlap should not be a big part of the argument. If 24-105 is a desirable range on FF (and it is) than 15-85 should be equally desirable on crop. If 24-105 is a great range on crop than why does nobody (or very few at least) call out for 38-160 lenses for FF?

BINGO!

Also consider that you may not ever need or want 10-14, Contrary to what a lot of folks think it may not be as useful to you personally...Super-uber wide isnt for everyone after all and keep in mind that 15 on your 40D is giving you a wider field of view than the 28-80 on your Elan did

If you're doing a lot of traveling consider that you can take ONE lens, you dont have to take two, and something to carry your camera and both lenses in, a 40D and a 15-85 will easily fit into a decent messanger bag just fine (I did it with my 30D and I do it with my 7D)

I have owned both the 24-105 and the 15-85 and I'll say on crop I'd take the 15-85 every day of the week, its the better lens period for a crop camera

Yes the 24-105 is a -hair- faster and a constant aperture but the 15-85 is just as sharp and I've never been in a situation where just -one- stop would make the difference, the color and contrast on the 15-85 is pretty much equal to the color and contrast on the 24-105....

I personally tried the "have a UWA and a FF normal zoom" approach and didnt like it, Sure you cover the same, but sometimes i ended up having to stop and switch lenses every couple feet because i needed that 15-20mm portion on my 10-20....Sometimes in some places this just is NOT a convenient thing to do because people can be jerks and bump into you as you're juggling lenses around

I'd get the 15-85 and if i felt i wanted a wider lens THEN get the 10-22...

24 isnt very wide on a crop body. I a, really enjoying the 15-85 wide enough for me for landscape/architectual and enough reach for 99% everything. Honestly the f4 isnt a big deal with the iso capability of the new cameras anyway. I get nice portrait shots at 85mm..

I just got back from hawaii and used the 24-105 the majority of the time. It was wide enough most of the time. Rarily did I take out the 11-16 tokina and I was looking for landscape shots. I also rarely used my 85 1.8 or 100-400l. The 24-105 really worked well for me. The reason I didn't choose the 15-85 was because it isn't L quality build, weather sealed, constant aperature, or full frame compatible. That's more to give up to me than a little on the wide end, which might not be wide enough either.

My personal opinion is if you like to shoot wide, then 15 won't be wide enough anyway so you'll change lenses.

dpbdc wrote in post #10480981
I can't speak to the 15-15 as I have never used it, but I am very happy with the combo I have.

thats a prime lols.. to the OP, 10-22/24-105 may seem to be the more logical choice, but depending on how wide you want to go (or how long), this combo might cause you to change lenses more frequently. personally id go for sigma 8-16/canon 15-85. but thats only because 15mm is usually wide enough for me, and for even wider shots, 8mm seem to really cut it. good luck!