Canon 24-85mm, I read test reports which differ widely, need more opinions.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I read ratings on the 24-85mm F3.5/4.5 usm which vary from sub par

on Photozone.de to ok just under 4 on photography review. I am

thinking of getting this lens with an Elan 7ne for my wife.

 

I would appreciate user feedback on distortion, sharpness, bokeh and

construction. Is it a good value at $300 for a consumer grade zoom

or not?

[citizensmith1664875108]

I think its a great lens. I often use mine (on a 300D now, previously on an Elan7E) as a general purpose lens when I want to travel light. On the Elan I thought the range was perfect. Optically its at its best at the wide end. That's where I tend to spend most of my time though, so I prefered it over the 28-105 (which I also own). I also own 24 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8 primes as a comparison for it.

 

The lens is the equal of the 28-105, and both are well above average for consumer zooms. I think it only comes down to range. Would your wife rather have the 24-28 part or the 85-105 part? Whichever way you go, you won't be disappointed. Unless of course you wouldn't be satisfied with a 24-70 L. :)

[akocurek]

I bought one with my 10D and am disappointed with it. It's a little soft in the corners unless I stop down to F13. Distortion doesn't seem bad and construction is fine, though.

I'm dreaming of a 24-70; I wish they'd come out with an F4.0 version!

[harvey_edelstein1]

If its soft on a 10d which has a 1.6x crop wouldn't that mean that edges on the lens would be much worse on full frame 35mm film camera?

I was hoping that it would only have slight barrel distortion at the wide end and maybe some minor pincussion at the long end. Some softness on the portrait side might not be bad since too sharp shows things in a face that make-up is intended to hide. Does anyone know if there is a problem with quality control since the test reviews show a lens that varies from some samples being under average to almost very good.

[ryanjoseph]

My 24-85 works fine for me. A little bit soft wide open on my rebel, but far better than most consumer lenses. I have also noticed it is a little sharper than a older Sigma 24-70 F2.8 i tried. A great lens overall, and the images pop out at F11. Slightly prone to flare, and yes its not opticaly perfect. But for the money, i think it is one of the best consumer zooms.

[PuppyDigs]

<P>I use an EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM on my Elan 7E and 10D. As consumer priced zoom it is

wonderful: reasonably sharp, ultra fast AF, ring-type USM, small and light. It find it to be

the ultimate travel lens. Optically it's in the same ball park as the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS

USM and EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. It's main downfall--like the other 2 zooms--is strong

barrel distortion on the short end. Incidentally, unlike the other poster, I found the short

end to be pretty sharp even at F5.6 and decent wide open.</P>

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm#24-85Anchor"

TARGET="_blank">My EF 24-85 USM Review</A></P>

<P>I think the Elan 7NE/EF 24-85 USM will be a great combo for your wife.</P>

<P><B>EOS 10D & EF 24-85 USM ? Honolulu's Chinatown</P></B>

<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/downtown_images/

chinatown_altar.jpg">

[tom_burke3]

I have this lens, have previously had the 28-105 f3.5-4.6 zoom, and currently have

28mm, 35mm and 50mm primes (the slower ones in each case), plus the 17-40 L.

 

My personal feeling is that it is certainly better than the 28-105. This is one reason why I

have switched to using it as my normal 'walking around' lens. It isn't the equal of the

primes, nor would I imagine that it's as good as the 24-70 L lens, but there again it's

about a quarter the price and weight. Furthermore, at the wide end it's not far off the

quality of the 17-40, at least in the 24-40 range where they overlap. So I ony use the 17

-40 for shots wider than 24mm, and switch back to the 24-85 for anything at 24mm and

above.

 

I'm very happy with it. If I want better quality I switch to a prime, eg the 35mm f2. That

suits me; I'm prepared to 'zoom with my feet' in these instances, which tend to be when

I'm out on my own. When I'm out with the family, eg on holiday, it's the 24-85 that stays

on the camera.

 

Incidentally I have 33V (same as your Elan 7ne?) and a D60 and use this lens happily on

both.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I read ratings on the 24-85mm F3.5/4.5 usm which vary from sub par on Photozone.de to ok just under 4 on photography review

 

It may be due to the difference of the photographer's experience. A sample variation is also a probable cause.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jon_austin]

I wouldn't go so far to call it a great lens, but it's a good, solid lens. I use mine on a 10D, so some of its imperfections are no doubt masked by the small sensor's crop.

 

It's visibly inferior to the 17-40 that is my "normal" zoom in 1.6xLand, but it's my preferred lens for so-called street photography, where its longish view (38-136mm equivalence) suits me better. I think it's a good value for the money.

 

If I were using a film or full-frame digital sensor body, I'd probably replace it with a 28-135IS.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I was also thinking about the possibility of getting the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 fixed zoom which has gotten excellent reviews. I was concerned that the Elan 7ne might not have powerful enough autofocus motors onboard since Canon has USM motors in most of their lenses now and onboard motors are used with mostly older lenses. Does the combo of the Tamron and the 7ne work well?

 

Also, I would like to ask the last poster the weight of the 28-135mm, I know my wife will only use a fairly light and compact camera kit otherwise I would have looked at the superzooms or a two lens solution (wide angle and telezoom) which I would choose if it was my camera set-up.

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

Pretty good little travel lens.

 

Not as sharp as the Tamron 28-75/2.8 though in the same price range.

 

Makes a good companion to the 70-200/4L due to the range, and the shared filter size of 67mm.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

I have one and pretty much concur with the emerging consensus. It is not as sharp as the 24-70L, and I think mine is considerably less sharp at 85mm than at 75mm. On the other hand it is very light in weight and focuses very fast. It is my preferred street lens for those latter reasons.

[jon_austin]

The 24-85 weighs 13.4oz (380g), while the 28-135 weighs in at 18.9oz (540g). Do you think an extra 5.5oz would push the total weight over the limit for your wife? (I ask this in all sincerity; how would I know?)

 

You can check out all the specs of every item in the EOS system at:

 

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

[socke]

I bought the silver version for my holidays and I'm pretty happy with it. <br>

At least on a croped dSLR it seems fine to me<br>

<img src="http://www.hett.org/web/files/0001/CRW_6109.jpg">

[erick_kyogoku]

Hi Harvey,

 

I have had both the 24-85 and the 28-135 IS. I was using the 24-85 USM, which I think is

excellent for the price, until the 28-135IS was introduced. I bought the 28-135

immediately

upon its

release, in Tokyo, and have used it as my main travel lens. (I've been to 50+ countries, so

that's quite a bit of work) I was shooting with an EOS 50E (actually a 55, the Japanese

model). I now use the 28-135 with a Canon D10. Right now I'm inclined to sell my D10

and 28-135 in Paris so that I can pick up a D20 and EF-S 17-85 USM in Japan or the US.

 

Permit me to explain why I wrote the above info: The 24-85 in tandem with my EOS 55

was a great travel companion. It was light and the resulting pictures were of good quality.

These shots were taken in Tibet, 1998: <p>

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hiro/tibet/

<p>(Taken on Fuji Reala, NPS, NPH film; scanned with a Nikon Coolscan III) Forgive my

use of

a softening filter, it was a new toy at the time -- in fact, the whole kit was.

 

The 28-135 IS is a more versatile travel lens, and with the IS + Monopod one can get

good low-light results. But now I'm using it with a D10 and I'd like to get wider. Still, the

photos

are not bad:<p>

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hiro/france/pretty-paris/

<p>

These are just low quality JPGs, you should see the 18+ MB TIFs. If you think this is

acceptable then you'll probably feel the same about the 24-85, 28-135 IS, 17-85 IS and

similarly priced upper-quality consumer lenses.

 

The reason I mention my plans for a D20 and a 17-85 IS, aside from the obvious benefits

coming from increased megapixels, is that the D10 + 28-135 are getting to be a bit heavy

for me. It's fine when I go out with the intention of taking photos all day (I take along a

28/1.8 and 50/1.8 always), but if I'm out to see and experience other things, the D10 and

28-135, both relatively heavy, stretch the limits of my smaller camera bag and can be a

burden to tote. Perhaps your wife will think this way of the 28-135 vs the 24-85. (The

D20 is smaller & lighter than D10, and this too is evident: the 17-85 IS is more compact

than the

28-135) I'd like to move closer to the size and weight of my original EOS 55 (Elan IIe in

America,

the predecessor to the Elan 7) + 24-85. In trying to write a helpful conclusion: I'd say that

the quality of the 24-85 is certainly above par and among the best consumer zoom lenses,

and that it's probable that your wife may find the weight difference between the 28-135

and 24-85 significant. I hope my opinion is of some value to you.

Good luck

[erick_kyogoku]

Excuse me, part of my above response was meant for Jon rather than Harvey. I didn't

realize that the follow-up question was posted by someone other than the thread's author.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Eric I loved the Eiffel tower shot at night the sky was fantastic. I saved it to look at when I play Edith Piaf tapes.

[erick_kyogoku]

Thanks Harvey! If you look closely in the first photo, you can see people from the

observation deck in the close-up hanging over the rail, just to the upper-right of

the slightly hidden moon. That is the only photo taken with a 100-300mm lens, mounted

from a Leica table-top tripod along a wall lining the Seine.

<p>

If you have a chance, pick up some music from Liane Foly, Keren Ann, and Carla Bruni. I

think you'll like it if you have a taste for Edith Piaf -- in my opinion even better, especially

Keren Ann.