Canon 15-85 or 24-105L on 7d

chenga732 wrote in post #11604583
Currently, I have Canon 28-135 is usm and Sigma 28-70 f2.8. I am planning to get a Canon 7D. With my current lens, is it good enough for walk-around lens on 7D? Or should I get Canon 15-85 or 24-105L.

Of those two choices, I don't think the 24mm is wide enough... so I'd have to say 15-85.

When I had the 24-105, I missed the 15-24 a whole lot more than I miss the 85-105 now. Even though I had the 10-22, it wasnt always with me and I always had to be changing lenses when it was - PITA.

The 15-85 is "slow" but in reality, the 24-105 exactly fast either. Being able to stop down from f5.6-f4 will very rarely save you from needing a flash/prime and the differences in DOF are negligible.

Also, I know at least one person mentioned the standard "if you plan to go FF get the 24-105". Sure, makes sense, but only if you're going to do it soon. No sense using a lens that is inconvenient for your style of shooting for 2 years...lenses retain value well - just sell them and you'll barely get nailed on re-sale. A couple hundred bucks or less isnt bad for "renting" a lens for 2 years. Buy lenses for the format you use today.

Jeff81 wrote in post #11615530
It's all about focal length preference. I originally had a Tokina 12-24 and Canon 24-105. I found myself switching lenses WAY too often to the point that it became really annoying. The 17-55 fixed that problem for me. I'd pick the 15-85 over the 24-105, but that's me.

Other people can't tell you if its good enough for a walk around. The decision should be based on your shooting preferences. What camera do you have now? Is it the same sensor? If so, the perspective isn't going to change. How do you like your current lenses?

Currently, i have a canon xsi and will be getting 7D. I have the following lenses:

canon 18-55is
canon 28-135
sigma 28-70 f.8
sigma 70-300 dg f4.0-f5.6

MNUplander wrote in post #11616629
When I had the 24-105, I missed the 15-24 a whole lot more than I miss the 85-105 now. Even though I had the 10-22, it wasnt always with me and I always had to be changing lenses when it was - PITA.

The 15-85 is "slow" but in reality, the 24-105 exactly fast either. Being able to stop down from f5.6-f4 will very rarely save you from needing a flash/prime and the differences in DOF are negligible.

Also, I know at least one person mentioned the standard "if you plan to go FF get the 24-105". Sure, makes sense, but only if you're going to do it soon. No sense using a lens that is inconvenient for your style of shooting for 2 years...lenses retain value well - just sell them and you'll barely get nailed on re-sale. A couple hundred bucks or less isnt bad for "renting" a lens for 2 years. Buy lenses for the format you use today.

That's why I'm taking a different path now... I'm taking my chances with SIGMA 30mm 1.4 for low light and portraits (wife+2kids). And after that, I'll get an inexpensive tele 70-300mm. That's about it for me...

If they just would have made the 15-85 a 2.8...

If you are looking at a 7D, and would like an f2.8 lens with IS, I would reccommend purchasing just the body, and going with either the 17-55mm F2.8 IS or Sigma's 17-50mm F2.8 OS EX HSM. I own the latter and it is tack sharp, and very well built.

Del Boy wrote in post #11617548
If they just would have made the 15-85 a 2.8...

Then it would cost at least $2,000 and would be a lot bigger & heavier. How many people would pay that for a crop lens?

The 15-85mm is a great focal range for a walk around lens on a crop body. If Canon offered this lens at the time, I may have went in that direction instead of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

Focal length and what fits is very personal. For me the 24-105mm is damn near perfect. Love it in the studio and love it as a general walk around all weather lens... of course fitted on my 60d we'll see how "all weather" that combo really is.

10-20mm for the wide stuff
24-105mm for my normal range
Future belongs to the 100-400mm IS II when and if it is released.