Any comments on 20-35 and 24-85 for digital

I'm looking into possible 'every day' lenses for digital (1.6 crop

factor).

 

Are there any comments on the 20-35 and 24-85 with regards to

chromatic aberration.

 

I'm looking for something with a bit better performance than the kit

18-55 but a bit less expensive than the 17-40. While the 20-35 and

24-85 have good reputations for film I'm unsure if they cause the

dreaded colour fringing on digital cameras...

<p>I have the 24-85 and use it fairly often as my favored lightweight 'walking around' lens. I've probably taken 3k images with it on my 10D. Like any consumer zoom with a wide end, it does have some chromatic aberration, though I've never really found it objectionable.

 

<p>I don't know what is meant by "dreaded colour fringing on digital cameras." I gather you aren't referring to lateral types of chromatic aberration, as that can be seen on film as well. If you want to clue me in, I'll be glad to tell you if I've ever seen it.

I used the 24-85 when I first got my 10D and really enjoyed it's flexibility and convenience. For the money, it's hard to beat.

 

I did move up to the 17-40 in order to get a wider lens. The 24-85 is now back on my EOS-3 where it fits right in with my 70-200 F4.

 

I really don't think you will go wrong with either of your choices. See if you can try them first at you local dealer or from someone you know who has either one.

Another satisfied 24-85 user here. I use it and the 17-40. Interestingly, I tend to use the

17-40 only < 24mm; ie, I switch back to the 24-85 as soon as possible.

I'm happy with my silver 24-85, looks a bit weird on my D60 but who cares for the look of a lens?

 

I recently added a Sigma 17-35 EX DG HSM with which I'm very happy.

 

Before the Sigma I used a Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 most of the time with good results stopped down to f6.7.

I used to have the 20~35USM, but that was before I had a digital camera, so I only ever used it on film. I thought it was quite a good lens, and certainly good VFM, but it had quite a lot of CA at the wide end. At the long end I found it to perform better that the 28~105/3.5~4.5USM I also had at that time. I replaced it with a 17~40 which is a much better lens in all respects, and makes an excellent standard zoom on a 1.6-factor camera. However, even the 17~40 gives a fairly limited zoom range as a standard lens, and that would be even more true of the 20~35.

 

My son Isaac has a 24~85 and has had excellent results from it at the wide end, but he is not so happy with it at the long end, probably because he is comparing it with results from his 70~200/4L at its wide end! I have used his 24~85 a few times and agree that it is a bit of an under-performer at 85 (not through CA but just general limited sharpness), but then my standard of comparison is the 85/1.8.

 

Since you already have the 18~55 kit lens, which is said to be a decent performer given its very low price, a marginal improvement in optical quality at the cost of a less useful zoom range does not sound like a good way to spend money. I will probably not be the only person suggesting that you save up for a bit longer and either buy the EF-S 17~85IS for maximum flexibility and a performance improvement probably comparable with that from the lenses you mention, or go for top performance with the 17~40.

I agree with Robin. The 24-85 isn't enough of an improvement in optical quality over the 18-55 to make it worthwhile. I'd save up for the 17-40.