EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM VS EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM


#1
For my new EOS 7D, would it makes more sense to go for EF 24-105mm (equals EFS 15-65.6mm) which is a L lens and full frame (reusable should I upgrade to full frame in future). The price difference is about $300 more.

Looking forward for advise. Thanks Cass
 

yhchoong

New Member
May 1, 2010
39
0
0
#2
I think you've gotten it backwards. The EF 24-105 mm on a 1.6x 7D would be equivalent to 38.4-168 mm (multiplied by crop factor, instead of dividing). That's some significant loss on the wide end compared to the EFS 15-85. Anyway, if you could afford the EF 24-105, why not consider the 17-55 which is similar in price and a stop faster at constant aperture f/2.8?
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,515
29
48
Pasir Ris
#3
Since you are new to the topic you should start with the kit lens (unless you have the money to spend without much thinking). It is not a shame and not a bad thing to use whatever you have and it's wide to upgrade once you know what you actually need.
There is also a sticky thread here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/newbies-corner/797080-lens-etc-buy-after-my-1st-dslr.html
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#4
on the 7D...the focal length should be more ..because its a crop body.. not less.. so i think you got it wrong there. If you have the budget and willing to spend. Yea..get the L.. (but bear in mind the widest is 24..instead of 15). Better still if you are looking for a "1 time upgrade". Just get the EF 24-70mm F2.8L. Go to the shop and try.. if still in doubt. Dont buy.
 

toxicboy

New Member
Nov 28, 2010
314
0
0
Planet Earth
www.flickr.com
#5
I use the 7D, and to achieve sufficient coverage on the 'wide' end, the minimum that you should have is 17mm (translates to 27.2mm on the 7D).
24mm should be ok if you focus on portraits, or have the space to move backwards when filling the frame with large subjects, but it's just not flexible enough in my opinion unless you are very sure that you won't be taking expansive landscapes & architectural shots.
Noted that you are looking for a one-time solution in case you eventually upgrade to FF, but nonetheless I think something in the range of 17-55 (Canon), 17-85 (Canon), 17-70 (Sigma), or 17-50 (Tamron, which I use) would be more suited to the 7D.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#6
For my new EOS 7D, would it makes more sense to go for EF 24-105mm (equals EFS 15-65.6mm) which is a L lens and full frame (reusable should I upgrade to full frame in future). The price difference is about $300 more.

Looking forward for advise. Thanks Cass
Using an EF lens doesn't allow you to divide the focal length by the crop factor of 1.6 :)
EF 24-105L @ 24mm and EFS 15-85 @ 24mm, both using the same camera (7D), should give you almost exactly the same field of view.
It is the crop factor of the camera (not the lens) which results in the 'focal length multiplier'.

Depending on what you shoot, the missing 15-24mm if you use 24-105L might be frustrating.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#7
For my new EOS 7D, would it makes more sense to go for EF 24-105mm (equals EFS 15-65.6mm) which is a L lens and full frame (reusable should I upgrade to full frame in future). The price difference is about $300 more.

Looking forward for advise. Thanks Cass
Hi Cass, I noticed in your other posts as well that you seem to have the crop multiplier totally mixed up. Please do try to understand that you do not divide on a crop sensor, you actually multiply the effective FOV by the crop factor.
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#10
Thank you all for correcting me LOL !

I would go for EFS 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM and EF 70-200mm f4L USM (50% cheaper than IS series, unclear whether IS is worth 50% more ? use tripod instead

Smile...Cass
sounds like a good package.. at least u are covered from 15-200 with those 2 lens.
The IS will be very handy especially if you were to shoot at the long end. yea using a tripod can eliminate the problem..but also means.. you probably need to carry your tripod with you most of the time. Unless u use other form of support or have really steady grip. However since your lens got no IS..you dont have to worry if it fails and having to repair it.

Cheers.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,515
29
48
Pasir Ris
#11
I would go for EFS 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM and EF 70-200mm f4L USM (50% cheaper than IS series, unclear whether IS is worth 50% more ? use tripod instead
If you can easily transport (carry?) and deploy the tripod wherever you want to shoot then it's an option. From my short experience during a photographic trip I'd say the IS worth the the 50%. There were many situations during my trip when tripod was simply not an option. So it boils down to your intended usage.
 

#13
You guys sold me on the idea of IS. Diet on bread to cough up the 50%.

One final option that I've researched on Canon website are :-

a) EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ($1,045)
b) EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM ($1,423)
c) EF 17-40mm f4 L USM (no IS) - ($1,100)

Which will you choose based on quality, one-time buy and future upgrade to full-frame ??


a) EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM (weight 760gm) - $1,629
b) EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (weight 1050 gm) - $1,959

Which will you choose based on value for the money and one-time buy

Thank you and all inputs are appreciated...Cass
 

SkyStrike

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 29, 2010
3,444
11
38
Somewhere
#14
You can give 24-70 a read if you are really intending to go FF.
 

TheoDR

New Member
Oct 19, 2006
623
0
0
#15
Am using the 7D with 24-105L and the 70-300L. 15-85mm will be appreciably wider, but I have been falling back to my 18-55mm kit lens if I wanna go wider than 24mm.

Check out this site for lens reviews before parting with your money :) FM Reviews -
 

kelchew

New Member
Feb 25, 2011
364
0
0
bedok
#16
You guys sold me on the idea of IS. Diet on bread to cough up the 50%.

One final option that I've researched on Canon website are :-

a) EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ($1,045)
b) EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM ($1,423)
c) EF 17-40mm f4 L USM (no IS) - ($1,100)

Which will you choose based on quality, one-time buy and future upgrade to full-frame ??




a) EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM (weight 760gm) - $1,629
b) EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (weight 1050 gm) - $1,959

Which will you choose based on value for the money and one-time buy

Thank you and all inputs are appreciated...Cass
ef-s lens you can use on ff
if you choosing ef-s lens try to get the one that more popular (make selling it easy)
70-200 there other 3rd party lens oso maybe you can have a look..

good luck in choosing new lens
 

Oct 20, 2010
1,087
0
0
Shanghai, China, China
#17
You guys sold me on the idea of IS. Diet on bread to cough up the 50%.

One final option that I've researched on Canon website are :-

a) EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ($1,045)
b) EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM ($1,423)
c) EF 17-40mm f4 L USM (no IS) - ($1,100)

Which will you choose based on quality, one-time buy and future upgrade to full-frame ??


a) EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM (weight 760gm) - $1,629
b) EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (weight 1050 gm) - $1,959

Which will you choose based on value for the money and one-time buy

Thank you and all inputs are appreciated...Cass
Once you want to consider FF, you can rule out all EFS lenses.
For the wide angles, if your budget can stretch and you don't want to constantly upgrade, then also consider the 16-35II - it is decently good enough for most UWA applications.
FYI, you shouldn't have to worry too much about IS on the wide side, only on the tele end it is very important.

For the two tele zooms, the 70-200F4 IS is plenty good already, although as someone suggested, alternatives are available from 3rd party suppliers like Sigma, which has a very nice 70-200F2.8 OS for about the same price. This is a heavier lens, so try and see if you can take the weight before buying.
 

Top Bottom