User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Canon 24-105 f4 L vs Canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6

  1. #1
    Member aayling's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon 24-105 f4 L vs Canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6

    I'm looking at getting a good general purpose lens and I've had a few people recommend these two lenses but I'm wondering if anyone has opinions on which is better.

    At the moment my set up is a Canon 400D with a Canon 35-135 USM lens, nifty-fifty, and Sigma 150-500mm OS lens.

    I am after a lens that will provide really good image quality through the general use range. I generally take photos of kids, pets and animal/plant shots with this main lens.
    Thanks
    ________________
    Adam
    Canon 400D, Nifty-Fifty, Canon 15-85mm f/3.4-4.5 IS USM, Sigma 150-500mm f/5.6-6.3 DC OS HSM

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2009
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    1,450
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I had the same dillema and researched lenses to the nth degree. I came down on the side of the 24-105 on the basis of reviews and the slightly longer zoom. That longer zoom makes it just that bit more useful and it now stays on my camera all the time. I can recommend it as a really good lens for the main range that I use and I suspect many others would use too. Just about the best all purpose lens you can buy in my view.

  3. #3
    Today may be the day, Or not !
    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 24-105 F4 L is a great lens and is designed for a full frame camera, so DOF will be greater on a crop camera. If thats no issue, can't beat great fast glass.
    I also was looking for quite some time, But i found the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 worked a treat for me and is 1/4 the price. So all that said, it comes down to focal lenght you require. If you search under the Canon and or the Lens Gear Forums, (Use search box on home page or forum page) and you'll find plenty of comment on this same question.

    Bacic rule is to x your crop factor to the lens to get foacl length, 24-105 @ 1.6 say it would be roughly 39-168.

    See if you can try one at a quality camera store and check your minimal focal lenght/focus and see if it suits your needs.

    Hope this helps some.
    They call me "Blue" it's a red head thing.
    "My Flickr Site"
    Canon Bodies - 1DMk2N + 50D - Lenses - 17-35mm F2.8 L - 24-70mm F2.8 L - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 300mm F4 IS L - Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 - Sigma 10-20mm
    " I Never get tired of looking at our diverse country, even if its through the lens of someone else".
    CC is always appreciated.


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From all reports both lenses provide very good image quality.
    I upgraded from the 18-55 kit lens to the 17-85, which has since been replaced by the 15-85.
    Regardless of negative reports about the 17-85, I have been very happy with the image quality, and the 15-85 is reportedly better again.

    The 24-105 becomes 38-168 on APS-C sensors, so you're not gaining any of the wide angle end of the range, and to an extent overlapping the range you already have with the 35-135.

    It is often suggested that unless you are going to make large prints (A3 or bigger) that the difference in image quality between the better APS-C lenses such as the 15-85 and the L lenses isn't all that noticable to most viewers.

    If I had your kit, I'd probably lean towards the 15-85 for an increase in range of focal lengths, and an increase in image quality, even though it won't be as significant an improvement than it would be if you went to the L lens.
    Mark

    Canon 70D w/Grip l Canon 60D w/Grip l EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM l EF 70-200 f4L IS USM l EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM l EF 100 f2.8 USM Macro l EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM l EF 50 f1.8 II l Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM l 430 EX II Flash l Rode Stereo VideoMic l Manfrotto 055XPROB + 498RC2 Tripod l Benro MP-96 M8 Monopod l Lowepro Vertex 200 AW Backpack l Lowepro Pro Runner 300 AW Backpack l PS CS5 Extended l Lightroom 4.3

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jul 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    seems to me that a similar question comes up once a week. These two lenses represent a different FOV (field of view) on your 400D (aps-c size sensor). They are comparable ONLY as comparing the 15-85 for a 400D, and the 24-105 for a 5D - either of these on the 400D alone are going to have quite different focal lengths. You get the 15-85 to have a fairly wide, walkaround zoom. I would get the 15-85 in this case.
    Canon stuff 5Dmk1 w/ 24-70 f2.8L, Canon 5Dmk1 w/70-200f2.8L, 100mm f2.8 macro, 50mm f1.4, 580exII
    Alienbees B800, Lumopro 160, Manfrotto 155XPROB w/ 498RC2, Lowepro ProRunner X450AW
    Phew!

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter
    aayling's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So because the 15-85 is designed for the smaller sensor cameras the 15-85mm is the actual range on my 400D? So does that mean that the 15-85 on my 400D would truly have a focal length range of 15-85mm while the 24-105 would become 38-160 or so???

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2009
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    1,450
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aayling View Post
    So because the 15-85 is designed for the smaller sensor cameras the 15-85mm is the actual range on my 400D? So does that mean that the 15-85 on my 400D would truly have a focal length range of 15-85mm while the 24-105 would become 38-160 or so???
    You multiply the focal length of whatever lens you put on your 400D by the crop factor (1.6) and this gives you the effective focal length. If you want to compare apples with apples, you just multiply whatever lenses you put on the 400D by 1.6 and compare whatever the result is.

    Choosing the lens really depends on whether you favour a wider lens over a longer one. For every day shooting which tends to cover a lot of different ranges, I opt for a bit more length - but you may be into wide angles shots.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jul 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, the 15mm end is equiv. to 24mm on a 35mm film body or full frame digital body (physically larger sensor). The 24mm end of the 24-105 is equiv. to 38mm.
    This is why you cannot compare these two lenses. The focal length stated is the actual focal length - this does not change, however the field of view represented by eat will be dependent on body you use it on (aps-c VS full frame)

    Quote Originally Posted by aayling View Post
    So because the 15-85 is designed for the smaller sensor cameras the 15-85mm is the actual range on my 400D? So does that mean that the 15-85 on my 400D would truly have a focal length range of 15-85mm while the 24-105 would become 38-160 or so???

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter
    aayling's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I thought I'd clarify the type of photography I do most. I'm generally into wildlife photography most of the time (hence the 150-500) but along with that I also do some portrait stuff and sports photography.

    I've just been at a volleyball comp shooting solely with my 50mm f1.8 as it's the only lens I had fast enough in the lower light conditions.

    I've been borrowing a canon 18-200mm lens off a friend who loves it but it doesn't seem popular on the forum. Any comments???

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jul 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Optically, the Canon 18-200 isn't terrible really. For what it is. However, the ones i've seen seem to suffer terribly from zoom creep, where the lens will zoom right out (and extend a helluva lot) if tilted downwards at all. This is bad bad news if you're carrying it around your neck and it lengthens and whacks against something. There is no zoom lock either.

    Back to your original question, if you don't do landscape the 24-105 is probably the better choice. If you find you never work below 24mm on any of your existing/borrowed lenses then you probably won't miss it

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    aayling's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah I don't really do much landscape stuff and I think if I did I would be mire happy to have a dedicated wide angle lens like a 10-20mm or so as I'd be setting up a tripod and all anyway - not much more effort to do a quick lens swap. 24-105 (36-135 round about) seems to be the main range I shoot in except when I'm birding but then I have my 150-500 on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •