Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM and Canon 60D or 7D

[GrahamS]

I guess this topic will go around and around for as long as it takes Canon to change their policy and recognise that there are professional photographers out there that use crop sensor cameras, namely the Eos 7D, which is manufactured to "pro" specs anyhow. Canon promote the EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS and the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS as the "standard" zoom lenses for the 7D. They do not manufacture an EF-S lens with the "L" designation. It is a misconception that L lenses are optically superior to non-L lenses. They are not, but they definitely are mechanically superior. An L lens is designed to be as bullet proof as a lens can be and still carry a reasonable price tag.


The EF 24-105 f4 L IS USM is now quite an old design and in my experience, the image quality is not as good as that of the EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS, and is particularly poor (relatively speaking) between 80 and 105mm. The EF 24-70 f4 L IS USM has very good image quality and has the same bullet proof build quality, but has s fall-off in edge resolution when used wide open at 50mm. The 24-105 has been tainted with the "high-end kit lens" label because it is offered with the 5D III and the 6D bodies. Be assured that it is in no way inferior to any other Canon "L" lens and is built to the same standards as all Canon professional lenses. I owned both the EF 24-105 L and the EF-S 17-55 f2.8. I have sold the 24-105 and replaced it with a EF-S 15-85 because I will be travelling extensively in Asia later in the year, using a 7D, and I want the wide angle capability of the 15-85. The weight of the 24-105 is also PITA when travelling light, as is the 17-55 f2.8, which also suffers from extreme axial chromatic abberation at all apertures, and unless fitted with a UV or protector filter, will injest dust and moisture like a vacuum cleaner. Why don't I use an EF 17-40 f4 L USM, you ask? Because I want and need IS capability.


So, my advice is, if you want a walk-about lens for use on a crop frame body that offers high image quality and is fairly light weight, get the EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, unless you are a movie buff and need a constant aperture across the entire zoom range, in which case you have no choice but to opt for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM or one of the "L" lenses.

[davidedric]

Thanks for an excellent summary, Graham

I wonder if you, or anyone, would venture an opinion of the EFS 15-85 as described above, as compared with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 to 4. Reduced range, but significantly faster and seems to me to have good IQ?

[William W]

No EF-S lens will ever fit the L Criterion of being able to be used on all cameras of the Series.

Although on other points of criteria for L Designation Canon raise the benchmark as developments are made: in the history of L Designation, Canon has never faltered on the one criterion that any lens with an L Designation MUST be able to be used on all cameras of the Series.

By definition an EF-S Lens CANNOT be used on ALL cameras in the current EOS Series

And therefore, by definition no EF-S lens will ever be given an L Designation no matter how many other L Criteria than EF-S lens meets or exceeds.

For example the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM is an excellent lens in all respects: but discussing whether it is not or why it should be an L Series Lens, is not relevant.

WW

[GrahamS]

Thanks for an excellent summary, Graham

I wonder if you, or anyone, would venture an opinion of the EFS 15-85 as described above, as compared with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 to 4. Reduced range, but significantly faster and seems to me to have good IQ?

I have used the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 extensively and it is an excellent lens. It also suffers from chromatic aberration and is only sharp corner to corner from f8 to f11. The performance wide open is not anywhere as good as the Canon AF-S 17-55 f2.8. However, it is half the size and weight.

[GrahamS]

No EF-S lens will ever fit the L Criterion of being able to be used on all cameras of the Series.

Although on other points of criteria for L Designation Canon raise the benchmark as developments are made: in the history of L Designation, Canon has never faltered on the one criterion that any lens with an L Designation MUST be able to be used on all cameras of the Series.

By definition an EF-S Lens CANNOT be used on ALL cameras in the current EOS Series

And therefore, by definition no EF-S lens will ever be given an L Designation no matter how many other L Criteria than EF-S lens meets or exceeds.

For example the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM is an excellent lens in all respects: but discussing whether it is not or why it should be an L Series Lens, is not relevant.

WW

There is no technical reason why an EF-S lens could not fit the "L" series criteria - it's only a marketing decision on Canon's part. If they did change their policy, there is no reason why a professional AF-S series of lenses couldn't carry the "L" designation - the prefix AF-S would be sufficient to differentiate them from the full frame L lenses, as is the case with the EF-S lenses now. So, you could have EF-L and EF-S L.

[William W]

There is no technical reason why an EF-S lens could not fit the "L" series criteria - it's only a marketing decision on Canon's part. If they did change their policy, there is no reason why a professional AF-S series of lenses couldn't carry the "L" designation - the prefix AF-S would be sufficient to differentiate them from the full frame L lenses, as is the case with the EF-S lenses now. So, you could have EF-L and EF-S L.

I expect the underlined portion is an opinion?

I have no idea if that particular criterion which Canon set for an L Designation is predicted on Marketing, or not: but I doubt it is, because L Designation precedes this issue of EF and EF-S.

The criterion we are discussing was present well before the release of the EOS Series. (i.e. "EF" Lens Series.)
The EOS Series began with only "EF" Lenses.
Subsequently, EF-S Mount lenses were added to the EOS Series.
EF-S is a subset of EF.

As far as I know, this present EOS Series is the only case that the issue has arisen, that is whereby there are TWO different lens mounts within the same Series.
Hence the criterion to be accredited for an for L Designation: to mount on all cameras of the Series, has been tested.

WW

[GrahamS]

I expect the underlined portion is an opinion?

I have no idea if that particular criterion which Canon set for an L Designation is predicted on Marketing, or not: but I doubt it is, because L Designation precedes this issue of EF and EF-S.

The criterion we are discussing was present well before the release of the EOS Series.
The EOS Series began with only "EF" Lenses.
Subsequently, EF-S Mount lenses were added to the EOS Series.

As far as I know, this present EOS Series is the only case that the issue has arisen, whereby there are TWO different lens mounts within the same Series - hence the criterion: to mount on all cameras of the series to be accredited for an for L Designation, has been tested.

WW

Of course it is my opinion - and you miss my point, which is that Canon do not market any lenses in EF-S mount specifically for professional use, such as the L lenses in EF mount.

[William W]

Of course it is my opinion - and you miss my point, which is that Canon do not market any lenses in EF-S mount specifically for professional use, such as the L lenses in EF mount.

Yes.
I didn't understand that specific point, which you were making.
BUT - Canon ONLY market their 1 Series Cameras as their "Professional" range: hence that's where we are – no EF-S lens will fit a 1 Series.

I understood (earlier) that it was your opinion that the 7D should be marketed as a being in Canon's "Professional" range of Cameras: I just missed your segue of the same thought being for EF-S Lenses. I was explaining WHY EF-S lenses could not ever be L Designated.

***

I expect that Canon would disagree with you, that a 7D should be marketed as being in their "Professional Range"
I expect Canon would have many reasons and those reasons would be backed by many users too, I expect: there is an abundance of differences between a 7D and a 1 Series camera requisite for "professional uses" (not just sensor size) and citing specifically, ruggedness of build, just as one example. I don't think the picture is all that so narrow as being marketing bloody-mindedness. There are many differences between those cameras.

On the other hand lack of an "L designation" for a lens and the fact that the 7D is NOT a "Professional" Camera, doesn't mean that you (or anyone) can't use a 7D and an EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM to make pictures and sell them for a lot of money . . . but you won't get admittance to CPN with that rig: and that might, or might not be, of importance to some.

Personally, I've sold pictures out of a 20D and I sometimes get to a shoot by train travel and not driving a Maserati: so, similarly, I also don't make my purchase choices based upon what Canon might label as "L Series" and/or "Professional Cameras".

However I DO make my purchase choices based upon, in part, the knowledge and understanding of what Canon's criteria are for both those labels they have.

*

The salient point which I was making apropos this topic and this thread is:
That the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM is a spectacular lens and if one wants to use a really good standard zoom on an APS-C camera, then I would highly recommend this lens.

Additionally, I am suggesting that one should NOT take into consideration that the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM is not designated as an L Series Lens – and that is because it unable to be so designated.

***

When considering and selecting an EF-S Lens for purchase - the consideration and discussion of whether the lens is an “L Lens” or not an “L lens”, is moot.

WW