# EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L



## shivac77 (Oct 10, 2013)

Hi Guys,

Currently I own Canon 7D with 15-85mm lens on it. I am pretty much happy with this combination, the way I get the pictures and I see them sharp and colorful. But when ever I look on the net about 24-105mm , I am excited to buy it, but still in dilemma to get it or not because I own 15-85mm. Any suggestions to get or not 24-105 mm? In addition 15-85mm I also use 70-200 f/4L for telephoto.

Thanks In Adv,
Charan


----------



## ahab1372 (Oct 10, 2013)

I never used the 24-105 on a crop body, but did use the 15-85 and was very happy with it. I know there are happy 7d with 24-105 users out there, some of them complement the combination with a EF-S 10-22 or another UWA, because 24mm on your 7d is not very wide. I terms of Image quality, don't expect the 24-105 to be any better than the 15-85. Since you have the 15-85 already, I would just stick with it.

What is(are) the exact reason(s) why you are considering the change?


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

if you like to go wide, the 24-105 isn't ideal on crop. but if solid reach, easily fixed distortion in post, a constant aperture are your preferences, then by all means take the plunge. it is a really nice lens if you can get one for around 650 or so.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Personally I liked the 24-105 on my (now sold) 7D, but did have Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and Sigma 10-20mm wide angle lenses. A couple of years ago I used only 24-105 IS (on 7D) for my vacation in England and Scotland and never missed the 15-24 range. If you don't need the 15-24 range then you will definitely like the IQ and built quality of 24-105 IS over the 15-85 IS ... but if you need the 15-24 range but still want to get the 24-105 L lens, then you will have to either upgrade to a full frame camera or buy EF-S 10-22 (or similar from Sigma or Tokina). You do need to remember that 15-85 IS was specifically made for 7D and it pairs beautifully on 7D like no other EF-S lens can ... if you do sell it, I think you will miss it.


----------



## luckydude (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to be crop only and I bought the 24-105 and returned it, it's not a good match for a crop factor body.

I later got the 15-85 and loved it. I already had the 10-22 and it saw little use after the 15-85 showed up. 
The 15-85 is an excellent walking around lens for crop factor.

I've since moved up to full frame (5DIII, awesome body, makes me hate the 7D) and I rebought the 24-105.
It's great on full frame.

Personally, if you are staying crop and you already have the 15-85, I'd be looking at a different sort of lens 
for your next purchase. Either the Sigma 30mm (I have one of those and *love* it on a crop) or the 70-200, 
just something that covers some other sort of problem space.


----------



## aroo (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't put the 24-105 on a 7D very often because then I also have to carry the 10-22. The 15-85 is a more useful range.

If you're itching for a new lens, go for a bigger aperture like a 50 or 85 1.8, or I also like 100L and 60 EF-S on the 7D.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

any don't you put the 15-85 on 24 mm and walk around with it and see if it isn't wide enough.


----------



## Casey (Oct 10, 2013)

I was using a T3i and had the 24-105. I was tempted to get the 15-85 because 24 on a crop = 39mm, which was often not wide enough for travel and downtown shooting. If you are shooting mostly travel, street, etc then use your 15-85 as a walk around and 70-200 when you need the extra reach. That way you won't miss the wide shots. 

One of the reasons that I went with the 24-105 is because I knew that at some point I was going to get a full frame and did not want to spend money on EF-S lenses. I love the 24-105 on the 6D, but it really was not wide enough on the T3i.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 10, 2013)

The 15-85 + 7D is an excellent combination, which I sometimes use in preference to my 5DIII + 24-105. The 70-200mm is a superb complement to the 15-85 with the 7D. I don't think the 24-105 is a good fit to the crop as it is not wide enough.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 10, 2013)

I would not recommend purchasing the 24-105 unless you have a real need for the improved build quality (more rugged, weather sealed). I have both lenses and the IQ are nearly identical and the focal lengths are basically redundant (this is coming from someone who has many redundant FL zoom lenses). As mentioned earlier, you can pick up a 10-22mm if you need a wider FOV, but the 24-105 is not wide enough on a crop camera and you already have an excellent telephoto. If your 70-200 f/4L has no IS, I would use that money to upgrade to the IS model for sharper hand-held shots and weather sealing. But that's just me...


----------



## shivac77 (Oct 10, 2013)

I just thought would it be a good idea to buy 24-105mm as I see many people are saying the picture quality is sharp and also there are several sellers selling this lens for $750 and little. So I though of giving a shot ,but before that I want to know from you guys if there is any big difference in picture quality and color contrast etc.

Thanks guys for all your replies and money saving inputs.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

shivac77 said:


> I just thought would it be a good idea to buy 24-105mm as I see many people are saying the picture quality is sharp and also there are several sellers selling this lens for $750 and little. So I though of giving a shot ,but before that I want to know from you guys if there is any big difference in picture quality and color contrast etc.
> 
> Thanks guys for all your replies and money saving inputs.



Big value inc has sold the 24-105 for as little as 660. So I say yes at the price. The 15-85 is held in high regard and I have never personally used it. But I will say that ef-s lenses I have held and used, like the 17-55mm are nice, but the 24-105 does feel sturdier. F/4 at 70-105 v. f/5.6 at 70-85 (or whenever it switches to f/5.6) is a full stop of light, so instead of having to shoot at 1/60 v. 1/120 can be a big deal, even with IS. 

The fact of the matter is that both lenses are REALLY good and you may notice a difference, but it probably won't be like when you upgrade from the 18-55mm.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 11, 2013)

The Canon EF-S 15-85mm is my favourite ‘go-to lens’ for the 7D and the 1 lens option I use when I only wish to travel with 1 lens. Put simply, it has an extremely useful focal range, very good IQ [sharpness, contrast, low CAs good bokeh, etc], build quality (a step above most consumer zoom lenses) and convenient features like FTM USM AF & a 4 stop IS.

The 24-105mm has a less useful focal range on a 7D, very similar (still very good, but not better) IQ, better build quality – and similar FTM USM AF & a 3 stop IS (note: one stop less effective).

For a 7D, I’d definitely stay with the 15-85mm – as the focal length is just so much more appropriate. There is little difference between 85mm & 105mm. 105mm @ f/4 provides a bit extra control of depth of field than the 85mm @ f/5.6. (I have owned a good copy of a 28-135mm, which I know is a bit different again, but it feels more similar to the 24-105mm regarding focal length).

The 15-85mm stands up well to use in a variety of conditions (I’ve taken photos with it in very dusty environments, light drizzle, fog and humid conditions… it did not suffer issues. I would probably have some concerns using it in heavier rain or in the tropics for extended periods of time, though). The 24-105mm is better weather sealed, but even with it, I would not take it into the harshest environments on a 7D. With a 1D body, I’d venture most habitable places on this planet 

In addition to my 15-85mm, as zooms I also have a Sigma 8-16mm (love this UWA lens, a great wider complement to the 15-85mm!) and the 70-300mm L (a great high quality portable tele complement to the 15-85mm). When I want fast glass, I like primes (I don’t consider f/2.8 really ‘fast’, so that’s why I don’t have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8). Enjoy taking photos with your 15-85mm!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 11, 2013)

shivac77 said:


> I just thought would it be a good idea to buy 24-105mm as I see many people are saying the picture quality is sharp and also there are several sellers selling this lens for $750 and little. So I though of giving a shot ,but before that I want to know from you guys if there is any big difference in picture quality and color contrast etc.
> 
> Thanks guys for all your replies and money saving inputs.


Yes, its a good idea if you don't need the 15-24 range ... the EF 24-105 f/4 IS does have better image quality then the 15-85 ... but not a whole lot more, just a little bit more but you can see the difference if you look closely. But the build quality of 24-105 is far superior to 15-85.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 11, 2013)

My experience using both the 15-85 and the 24-105L consistently on a 60D is that their IQ is essentially equal. I got a great deal on the 24-105L and bought it anticipating some improvement in IQ. I didn't experience that, but still like the lens well enough to keep it. I pick between them based on venue -- tighter space = 15/85, more room = 24/105. 

As others have suggested, unless you are planning to go FF soon, you might find greater satisfaction with an UWA or a large aperture prime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 11, 2013)

I have used my 24-105mmL on my crop bodies, but I had to carry two lenses and change them quickly when I needed a mildly wide angle. Sometimes you absolutely cannot back up far enough.
After getting the 15-85, I've never put the 24-105 on my crop since. And, now that I have a 24-70 MK II for my FF, the 24-105 is just sitting. Its too nice of a lens to be left sitting, so I may finally sell it.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Oct 11, 2013)

15-85 is basically the same range on crop that 24-105 is for FF. 24 just isn't wide enough on crop.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Oct 11, 2013)

My experience: 
I started out with a Rebel (450D) and 24-105mm + 10-22mm.
This was for me a great combo with very good IQ. 
However I wanted a one-lens walkaround kit, so I added the 15-85mm. This was great, too. I did not experience overall loss in IQ vs the 24-105. And it is a very usefull and flexible range on crop. 
I also later on added 70-200 L IS. So I did not use 24-105 much after that.

As long as you are on a crop body and have the 15-85, I would not consider the 24-105. 

On FF it is a completely different story. I made the switch to 6D this spring, and now my 24-105 performs brilliantly as my one-lens walkaround kit. (I then had to sell off the two EF-S lenses - I had enjoyed both very much on crop).


----------



## docsmith (Oct 11, 2013)

I shot for years with the EFS 15-85 on the Canon 7D and have since switched to the 24-105 on the 5DIII. I've played a little with the 24-105 on the 7D. The only way I can see it being better than the EFS15-85 on a cropped body is if you never shoot wide and always tend to favor the mid-tele range. Otherwise, the EFS 15-85 is a much better general purpose lens on a cropped body.


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 11, 2013)

When I had a 60D and upgraded from an EF-S 18-135 to 24-105, I soon realized that the 24 (FOV same as 38mm) was definitely not 'wide enough' for most indoor photography. So I complemented it with a 16-35 f2.8L for when I needed 'wider'. That solved the problem. 

So, as the OP already has sufficiently 'wide enough' with the 15-85, it's probably worth keeping as is, unless the f3.5-5.6 becomes a hinderance (definitely too slow for indoor, low light, no flash photography) or, like me, plan to upgrade to full frame in the future...which I did.


----------

