Canon 24-105L or Canon 15-85

downs523

downs523

Messages
686
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I Currently have the canon 24-105L and I am thinking of selling this and buying the 15-85. Reason is that I find the 24 not wide enough on my 7D. When I first bought it I didn't really notice it but now I need it slightly wider!

Has anyone owned both these lens's is there much image quality difference if any at all?

Anyone own the 15-85 with a canon 7D that could give there experience?

Type of photos I intend to do is general indoor and outdoor, mostly outdoors.

For the long range I have the 70-300L

Thanks
 
I don't believe theres much difference in IQ over the same range, the main things you'd be giving up are 85-105mmm, f/4 at the tele end and weather sealing.

I use the 15-85mm on a 550D and I know I wouldnt be without the 15-24mm range.
 
IMHO, the 15-85 gives crisper pictures on the crop. Whilst there is more vignetting at the long end, and distortion is slightly worse at some focal lengths, the lens correction in something like lightroom effectively removes this.

The 15-85 is also lighter, smaller and has a better IS system.
 
Thanks for the info people keep it coming :)
 
I have used a 15-85 on my 7d and it is very good. I went for the 17-55 in the end for the constant f2.8 but the 15-85 is as sharp and the IS system is also very good. I would very much recommend the lens.
 
menthel said:
I have used a 15-85 on my 7d and it is very good. I went for the 17-55 in the end for the constant f2.8 but the 15-85 is as sharp and the IS system is also very good. I would very much recommend the lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, what do you mainly shoot with the 17-55? Why did you need constant 2.8??

Thanks
 
I've also got the 17-55 and I'll chip in another vote for that. The f2.8 might not have many apparent uses, but being faster than f/5 after 40mm f.l. is a must for me. I mostly shoot landscapes, but also do a little bit of indoor protrait stuff without flash, so a fast lens is essential. Also if you can't be bothered with the processing, the 17-55 images are excellent straight off the camera.

Obviously you lose at the long end - so I ended up buying a 24-105 to fill in when I can't be bothered lugging the 70-200 around, and as a single decent standalone lens if you want to leave everything else behind. If I had to keep only one lens though it would be the 17-55.
 
I have both the 15-85 and the 24-105 which I use on my 7D and 5D2 rspectively. A while back I did direct comparisons using both lenses o my old 550D. I'm not usually a great pixel peeper, but I was curious.

To all intents and purposes, there was no difference. The 24-105 had a slightly better colour depth and overall a tad sharper in the centre, but otherwise and in practical terms they were difficult to separate.
 
Yellowbelly said:
I have both the 15-85 and the 24-105 which I use on my 7D and 5D2 rspectively. A while back I did direct comparisons using both lenses o my old 550D. I'm not usually a great pixel peeper, but I was curious.

To all intents and purposes, there was no difference. The 24-105 had a slightly better colour depth and overall a tad sharper in the centre, but otherwise and in practical terms they were difficult to separate.
Click to expand...

I used to own the 24-105, but after a quick experiment with the 15-85 there was no contest. The IQ is about the same for both but the 15-85 is better for landscapes.(y)
 
Alan Sandham said:
I used to own the 24-105, but after a quick experiment with the 15-85 there was no contest. The IQ is about the same for both but the 15-85 is better for landscapes.(y)
Click to expand...

Is that on crop or full frame?
 
Lots of positive comments on the 15-85 so will be getting that and selling my 24-105L.

Thanks
 
I tested a friend's 15-85 & my 24-105 side by side under test conditions (on a tripod, same FL, same aperture, same light etc.) on my 7D and upon viewing each photo at 100%, there was honestly very little in it!

Like others have said, the 24-105 gave (very) slightly better colour rendition and a tiny bit sharper, but unless your pixel peeping you won't notice it and even if you do, it's so slight as to not matter!!! Definitely a good lens.

Personally I prefer my 24-105 given the better build quality and range, but I must admit to having a Tokina 12-24 for wider shots, which really is a lovely lens too!!
 
I like my 17-55 IS
a solid performer and an upgrade from the tamron I had previously.
I use the IS to retain sharpness in hand held landscapes as a tourist snapper.
so if you want to shoot in okay light at the wide-ish end, at f11 to get a long depth of field but still have ISO100. then the IS is really nice.
f2.8 is lovely for creative DOF too of course
 
I know it's an older thread, but I'm considering these two lenses at the moment. The current Canon cashback is making it a tough decision though. As soon as I come close to clicking the button on the 15-85 I waiver and think how nice it would be to have the L. Then I have second thoughts about the extra ££ and using it on a crop and switch back to the EF-S... I've been doing this for a couple of days now. :(
 
you won't be disappointed with an efs 15-85 sold mine to a friend along with my 600d
wish I hadn't now and have had to place a wtd add for one back again
problem I'm finding is they are thin on the ground and far more than I sold mine for
story of my life lol
 
If I order from amazon within the next few hours I can have one in my hands tomorrow morning.

The 24–105 is in stock, but listed as may take 3-4 days extra.

I'm going away this weekend and would love to have it in time for then. So that's another tick in the 15–85 box.
 
Last edited:
Sponge said:
I waiver and think how nice it would be to have the L.
Click to expand...
Why? Other than the obvious cachet of having a red ring on the end of your lens.
 
There's no other reason is there? L lenses are the same as non-L, it's just the price and that little red ring that differs.
 
Sponge said:
There's no other reason is there? L lenses are the same as non-L, it's just the price and that little red ring that differs.
Click to expand...

not true imo
there is the odd non L lenses that are in the L league buy not many
efs 15-85 is one and the efs 17-55 f 2.8 is another, we also have the efs 10-22, but they are only for crops and have L price tags for a plastic body lens
despite their stunning performance are they of the same build quality ?
 
Last edited:
My daughter has just bought a 24-105mm and going to give it a try on my 7D

I also have the 17-55mm, very nice, but not great for landscapes at the wide end or at least I don't think so, much better up to about f/8 then starts to drop off.

Makes me wonder if the 15-85 is the same?

Think my choice would be the 24-105 for the extended range and couple that with a wide angle lens such as the 10-22mm (now that is good at f/11 upwards)
 
Last edited:
Sponge said:
If I order from amazon within the next few hours I can have one in my hands tomorrow morning.

The 24–105 is in stock, but listed as may take 3-4 days extra.

I'm going away this weekend and would love to have it in time for then. So that's another tick in the 15–85 box.
Click to expand...

Definitely get it over the 24-105L. Its smaller and lighter, better IS and IME as sharp, or sharper. The downside is only that its slightly slower than f/4.
Im on my 3rd 24-105L, this current one is the first time ive had a FF camera but on my previous (and current 60D) the 24-105 is not great.
I had a 17-55IS for almost 5 years, and in that time tried the 24-105L twice but each time i was under whelmed by it and sold it within a few months.
I sold the 17-55 last year to get the 15-85IS and couldn't have been happier. I did miss the constant f/2.8 but the extra 2mm on the wide end really made a difference.
For travelling its so compact its a joy to use. Also if you do any hand held video indoors the IS is whisper quiet on the 15-85.

There is a lens creep issue with this lens, a lot of people suffer from it but i wouldn't let that put you off. Make sure you get a hood as well.

IMO &IME of course.
 
Personally, I think the 17-55 f2.8 is a fantastic lens. The AF is really quick, the IS and f2.8 are useful and the focal length range is great. I've gone FF w/24-105 f4, but I miss the 17-55. There isn't really anything on FF that offers all the benefits of the 17-55.

The build quality isn't as nice as an L, there is no red ring, (and the hood's not included....which is a bit of a ****take at the price), otherwise, It's a great lens.
 
I agree, loosing the 17-55 has taken a little of the shine off going full frame. I'm sure the focus is slightly slower on the 24-105?

How do you find the Tamron? It's probably about as close an equivilent to the 17-55 as is available on FF.
 
Ive found the lack of reach with all my lenses a bit strange but im getting used to it.

Ive only had an evening with the Tamron. Its not mine but i was lent it so i could see how it preformed, with the intention of selling um 24-105 to get one.
I cant see any issue with using it, it seems comparable to the 24-105L as far as IQ goes (in fact the owner has done controlled some tests to confirm this) and having VC on a lens that can also let in so much light is fantastic.

I have decided against buying it, i needed a 100mm prime so went with that instead, for now, but i know i will end up with one by the end of next year.

It does seem almost ideal, on paper, as a FF 17-55IS but ive not come across any other lens that has the same pop as the 17-55. I love my 70-200 f/4 IS and its so sharp but even that doesn't have that almost 3D look to its images, although i put that down to the more compressed image a zoom and f/4 produces.
 
L lenses are better built than the the EF-S lenses IMO. But, unless you looking to go FF in the near future, there's no point in spending more than you have to TBH.

Saying that, I have a few L's in my kit bag that work very well (if not better) with my 40d than my 5d
 
despite how good these 3 efs lenses I mentioned are, one could argue that they are over priced having L label price tags attached to them
lenses like the efs 55-250 IS are a bargain for the IQ they return
 
Last edited:
I've got a 24-105 on a crop, rarely want for wider - I did buy a UWA but that was because I was going to NYC.

My Dad has a 450D with a poorly kit lens and I'm advising he goes for the 15-85 as a replacement. He won't ever go full frame, to be honest a 24-105 would be a bit of a waste, he will be more than happy with the 15-85 I think.

Has anyone noticed that the lens has shot up in price since Monday ? was 525 on Amazon, now 567, which pretty much defeats the point of the cashback.
Cheapest place I have found is Kerso (£500) but you wont get cashback on that as its not a UK lens. The alternative is Wilkinsons @ £555, should get cashback on that I believe.
 
cheapest I found in stock delivered for the 15-85 was DR @ £ 429.99
no cash back but it is still alot cheaper but it is a grey import
 
Thanks for the info Dave :)


dave_bass5 said:
Ive found the lack of reach with all my lenses a bit strange but im getting used to it.

Ive only had an evening with the Tamron. Its not mine but i was lent it so i could see how it preformed, with the intention of selling um 24-105 to get one.
I cant see any issue with using it, it seems comparable to the 24-105L as far as IQ goes (in fact the owner has done controlled some tests to confirm this) and having VC on a lens that can also let in so much light is fantastic.

I have decided against buying it, i needed a 100mm prime so went with that instead, for now, but i know i will end up with one by the end of next year.

It does seem almost ideal, on paper, as a FF 17-55IS but ive not come across any other lens that has the same pop as the 17-55. I love my 70-200 f/4 IS and its so sharp but even that doesn't have that almost 3D look to its images, although i put that down to the more compressed image a zoom and f/4 produces.
Click to expand...
 
I have the 24-105 on my 50d,it's my most used lens. I have the 15-85 on my sons 600d and it's his most used lens. Both are great and you wouldn't be disappointed either way.
 
I sold the 17-55 last year to get the 15-85IS and couldn't have been happier. I did miss the constant f/2.8 but the extra 2mm on the wide end really made a difference.
For travelling its so compact its a joy to use. Also if you do any hand held video indoors the IS is whisper quiet on the 15-85.

There is a lens creep issue with this lens, a lot of people suffer from it but i wouldn't let that put you off. Make sure you get a hood as well.

IMO &IME of course.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Dave on this. I have had my 15-85 IS for a year now and very happy with it - but I havent had any lens creep issue with it - it's quite firm all the time(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top