Having sold my 24-105 for the 15-85, I can say my image quality might have improved very slightly with the 15-85 in comparison. I made the change because of focal length and I'm very glad I did. I can't imagine taking that type of trip without anything wider than 24mm, but I also shoot a lot of architecture.
I started with the 24-105 before switching to the 15-85. On my 7D (and your 60D as well) the 15-85 is equivalent to 24-136mm, which is a perfect walk-around focal range. It has excellent image quality as well and is well built. I tend to keep it on my 7D most of the time, and use the 24-105 on occasion when I want a slightly longer reach. I think you'll like the 15-85 a lot.
Jeff_Stapleton wrote:
Have you thought about the 17-55/2.8?
Or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS darn near as good as the Canon but IMO better built at about half the cost. This is one awesome lens I have had both and prefer the Sig
The 17-55 IS is actually the crop equivalent to the 24-105L, not the 15-85. The 15-85 is an entirely different lens.
f/2.8 crop = f/4 FF because:
- FF has 1 stop DOF advantage when framing equalised
- FF is 1 stop cleaner high ISO, to compensate for the light loss from f/2.8 to f/4
88mm (55mm X 1.6) is closer FOV to 105 than 136mm (85mm X1.6)
Hm, the OP said in 3 months that he would be leaving on his trip and he posted this orginally in September. Chances are, the OP already left. Of course, we can continue the discussion but I thought I pointed that out .
willw9 wrote:
However, in the past few days, I've been giving the 15-85mm some real thought. Basically, given all of the hiking I plan on doing, I'm wondering if the 24mm end isn't quite wide enough for me. I suppose I can just step back a few feet to compensate? Does this sound about right?
If you want a shot of wide landscapes, like Kilimanjaro itself, you'll likely need wider than a 38mm equivalent FL. If Kilimanjaro doesn't fit in your field of view, you'll have step back a few thousand steps.
I also find that architecture and urban landscapes require a wide angle as well. In an urban setting I would find it very limiting to shoot buildings with 38mm as the widest FL.
Got both on my 7D (crop like your 60D). Personally, and as a lot of person already mentionned, I will not use the 24-105 if it is my widest option. So as a result I will go with the 15-85 even if its construction is not on par with the 24-105.
If you go with only two lenses for what looks like the trip of a lifetime, I would change your 55-250 for a better (and unfortunately more $) telephoto: 70-200Lf4 IS (with maybe a used 1.4x extender) or the new 70-300L IS come first to my mind. IQ of the 55-250mm is not reporting to be good (report here) and since you enjoy telephoto, your expectation should be higher.
For your information here are my "travel" kit:
Europe/City: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200L f4 IS
National Park: 10-22, 24-105, 100-400 (if wildlife) 70-200 (otherwise)
Backpacking (4~5 days with tent, food and bear box in my backpack): 10-22, 70-200L f4 IS
If, for any reasons, I am limited to 2 lenses for cityscape, I would replace my 10-22 + 24-105 combo by the 15-85
Dawei Ye wrote:
The 17-55 IS is actually the crop equivalent to the 24-105L, not the 15-85. The 15-85 is an entirely different lens.
f/2.8 crop = f/4 FF because:
- FF has 1 stop DOF advantage when framing equalised
- FF is 1 stop cleaner high ISO, to compensate for the light loss from f/2.8 to f/4
88mm (55mm X 1.6) is closer FOV to 105 than 136mm (85mm X1.6)
Yeah, but it's the wide end that matters (you can always crop an 85 mm to 105 without much loss of detail.
15 * 1.6 = 24, 17 * 1.6 = 27
Those 3 mm on the wide end make much more of a difference.
I have both lenses and pair them with a 5D II for the 24-105 and a 7d for the 15-85mm. I find that I frequently need 24mm so using the 24-105 on the 7D doesn't work for me. Since I like the focusing system of the 7D for general use, that system is my walk around combination. Very, very pleased with the results. I use it frequently for family gatherings as well where I want to get group shots and then quickly zoom into catch a casual "portrait type" shot. The slightly longer range over the 5D II/24-105mm combo works really well for me.
I tend to use the other combo for landscapes and still photography of various types where I need the higher resolution. As always, it is a matter of what type of shooting you are doing not any of us.
I recently picked up a 15-85 and love it. It's the perfect travel lens on the crop body. I had the 17-55 before and it a great piece of glass but found it to be a little short on focal length and felt I needed more reach. Get the 15-85 it is really a great lens.
Dick Snyder wrote:
I have both lenses and pair them with a 5D II for the 24-105 and a 7d for the 15-85mm. I find that I frequently need 24mm so using the 24-105 on the 7D doesn't work for me. Since I like the focusing system of the 7D for general use, that system is my walk around combination. Very, very pleased with the results. I use it frequently for family gatherings as well where I want to get group shots and then quickly zoom into catch a casual "portrait type" shot. The slightly longer range over the 5D II/24-105mm combo works really well for me.
I tend to use the other combo for landscapes and still photography of various types where I need the higher resolution. As always, it is a matter of what type of shooting you are doing not any of us.
I have exactly the same kits and in terms of image quality, the two lenses are very close. The L zoom as the edge in build, appearance and constant aperture while the 15-85 has better IS (one more stop plus panning). I haven't found the 5D2 AF lacking for walk around albeit the 7D certainly beats it for action. I seem to choose the 7D manly for the connivence of the popup flash for fill. The 5D2/24-105 is my choice for travel and landscape, and general use if I'm not too lazy to carry a flash. My reviews of both zooms:
I think it totally depends on your style, and the various comments here are all valid. Here's my own experience:
My 17-55mm was by far my most-used lens *in general* on a crop body.
But when I was hiking/biking I mostly used my 10-22mm and 70-200mm--in fact when I wanted to travel lighter I would leave the 17-55mm at the hotel.
IMO generally it's hard to make up for lack of wide angle--for landscapes stepping back won't help, and for wide-angle portraits you'll lose the dynamic perspective.
I'd say go with 15-85 instead of 24-105 on 60D - difference between 85 to 105 on telephoto end is not noticable but difference betwen 15mm and 24mm on wide end will make or break things in tight spots. I've used 15-85 in past on my trip to India and that was only lens I took with me along with 75-300 IS and after coming back when I was going thru my pictures I see 95% of my pictures were taken using 15-85 so carrying 75-300 IS was bit of stretch. I would advise combination of 15-85 + 55-250 instead of 24-105
.