No doubt they are both dogs compared to the heavy artillery you have listed but this is my price range for a first lens. I could have gone with a better lens and a Rebel body but decided to go with the 20D for the long run.
So I have two votes for the Canon ........ Any strong reasons or just personal preference? I have researched reviews and test quite extensively and to my mind both seem pretty decent when stopped to F5.6 to F8.0. that's why I was looking for a tie breaker.
The 24-85 isn't as bad as some here would indicate. It's actually pretty good when you crop out the corners and edges of the full frame with the smaller sensor in the 1.6x bodies. Of course that same crop factor hurts your wide angle coverage, giving it a full-frame equivalent of 40-135mm.
For the same reason, I wouldn't recommend the 50/1.8, as good as it is. It's basically a short telephoto on the 20D, not terribly flexible for all-around shooting.
I'd actually recommend the Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM as a good all-around lens that fits within your budget. Its FOV with the crop factor would give you a range of about 30-55 on a full frame camera, which covers wide angle and "normal" ranges pretty well. If you find one used, you'd have money left over to buy the 50/1.8 Mk 2 (as a portrait lens) and still stay within budget.
Disclaimer: I will be selling my 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM here soon, so my recommendation could be taken as self-serving. However, I would recommend it in your situation even if I wasn't selling one.
If you don't really need the wide coverage, I'd go with your initial suggestion, the 24-85.
You might check out the Tamron 24-135. Very well regarded, it was my first lens and sometimes, frankly, I miss the range in one lens. It's a bit on the large side but optically very good.
You know, it occurs to me that you're spending way more on the body than you are on glass, which is kind of backwards. With the current rebate deals, you could get a digital rebel body for half the cost of a 20D, and have so much money left over that you could buy the 17-85 EF-S for maximum flexibility in one lens, or the 17-40 f/4 L for better quality.
If you just can't cope with the idea of a digital rebel, a 10D would save you enough money over a 20D to give you more flexibility with your lens choices.
I would pick the Canon. I wouldn't say the 24-85 is a dog by any means besides I like dogs! Seriously, if you can stop down a little most people would be hard pressed to see the difference between this an more expensive glass.
Putting cheap glass on a DSLR is like putting lipstick on a pig, but the other way around. It's a good way to make a $1500 camera perform just as good as a <$500 one. The image is only as good as the weakest link in the chain that produces it; lens, camera/film, and photographer.
/begin rant
I don't get it ... what's with everyone?? The OP asked for an opinion about two specific zoom lenses based on his stated criteria and yet rather than responding to his question in a responsive, helpful or constructive manner, several of you insist on interjecting personal lectures about your approach to lens selection and be unnecessarily critical of his choices.
Note, his question did not ask whether you think it's a wise choice to pair up a "cheap" lens with a $1,500 camera. He simply wanted to know which of the two zoom lenses he wishes to purchase is better.
I would be willing to bet for those of you who commented negatively that you have never even seen or used either of the two zoom lenses.
Frankly, these types of responses offer no value because they fail to be responsive to the OP's issues. I don't mean to flame anyone, but one poster responded to the question which involved two zoom lenses with the suggestion that he pick up a prime lens! Now, we can debate until we're blue in the face about the pros and cons of zoom v. prime (if you'll note my signature, I favor the latter), but that wasn't his question, so the post was completely unresponsive.
/end rant
NOTE BENE: I realize that I don't have a helpful suggestion for the OP and I've engaged in the same behaviour that I've criticized others for, so for that I apologize in advance for wasting bandwidth and your time.
I vote for the Tokina 24-200 if you're looking for an all-round travel lens. Both lenses are decent, but the extra range of the Tokina will do you some good when you're travelling.
For very little more money than the 24-85 you can get the 28-135 IS, which a lot of folks agree is a very competent normal to telephoto lens on the 1.6 crop camera.
Most of the photos in this collection were shot with the 28-135, to give you an idea of it's flexibility.
/comment on rant
In a way you are right, but I do think it is fair to extend expert (and nobody doubts that these are experts) advice in this case. It might save OP money in a few months time when he decides either of these lenses don't deliver what he wants.See his list of priorities.
/end of comment
Yes I was trying to see if anyone had personal experience and hands on with either of these specific lens. I took quite a long time in deciding which route I wanted to go, and although some may be unhappy with my decision, I am not. The body research and information was quite thorough and easy to do with only two bodies. How many lens' are there?
For me the better glass will come in time. I feel I will appreciate the difference and know what to buy for my shooting style as time goes on.
I got the feeling perhaps a few had used the Canon 24-85, but nothing at all on the Tokina. At this point I still feel that for $ 200 bucks (Used , mint) for either lens is not a big expenditure, so if they really are dogs, I leaned something for not a lot of cash.
Let me rephrase my question:
If anyone owns or has owned either of these two lens, please give me some feedback regarding what you liked or disliked about it.
(No need to "reiterate not as good as "L"s")
Thanks!
P.S -- FYI -. I do have a Sigma 50mm EX DG on order.
Tokina 24-200: versatile! a one-in-all-lens that will probably not be too great at anything.
Canon 24-85: my choice if I were choosing between the two. I checked this one out at a camera store and was moderatly impressed with it's quality, but that's only because I tried the...
Tamron 28-75: here's the lens I would really get. I don't want to muddy the waters for you, but the Tamron is a constant 2.8 and gets good reviews from almost all who own it.
If this lens is going to be your starter walk around lens, sink a bit more cash into it. You obviously value quality (hence the 20D) so toss another $100 into a lens and get the Tamron!
I bought the 24-85 as my first lens, but replaced it recently with a Tamron 28-75 because it is a little soft, fine for portraits, but not really for landscapes. (If you really want one though, I'll sell you the 24-85 for $225).
No experience with the bigger tamron, and I can say that I miss the 24mm end of things with the tamron 28-75.
Rated for Optical quality on a scale of 1 to 5 here is what they say.
Tokina 24-200 --- 3.2 -- average (About $ 300)
Canon 24-85 USM -- 2.73 -- sub average (About $ 310)
And here's a couple more that were pointed out in the thread:
Tamron 24-135 -- 3.51 -- Good (About $ 330)
Canon 28-135 IS USM -- 3.25 -- Good (About $ 400)
And be careful on E-bay when bidding for a Sigma 50MM Macro:
Sigma 50mm EX Macro -- 4.65 -- Outstanding (About $250)
(The highest rated prime 50mm of all)
Sigma 50mm Macro --2.69 --- Sub Average Used about $ 150)
(The lowest rated 50mm prime of all)
Seriously, if you can stop down a little most people would be hard pressed to see the difference between this an more expensive glass.