Old 24-85 USM on full frame?

sportyaccordy wrote:

I'm looking to replace my Tamron 24-70 2.8 on my A7II... it's just too effing heavy (825g + 100g for the adapter). I looked at the 24-105 STM, and that looks like a great lens, but it's still a hair heavier than I'd like (525g + adapter), and I don't really need the extra reach. How does this lens compare to the 24-105 STM? My main shooting with these kinds of zooms is at the wide end, so performance there is critical. How is it there? I found a review that didn't sound too encouraging:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Wide open results from the 24-85 are reasonably sharp in the center (soft at 24mm), but very soft in the corners - especially the wide end of the focal length range. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 will give you better results - especially in the corners. This is not a great option for full-frame sensor cameras.

The EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 was the first lens I ever paired with my original D30 nearly 17 years ago. Canon had originally paired it with their APS-C film system (the Elph or something like that), and used it on their promo literature and manual with the D30. For APS-C, the wider 24mm was a welcomed 38mm equivalent, compared to the 28-135's 45mm equivalent wide focal setting.

I actually still own one of these lenses today. It doesn't see much use, but it's a cheap lens to keep around as a general range backup.

The pros of this lens are it's incredibly small size and weight, especially for the range it provides on full frame. Of course, as previously mentioned, it's pretty cheap, too. With a maximum f3.5-4.5 aperture, it's brighter than the typical kit lens. And the focal range is quite reasonable, exceeding the popular 24-70 options.

The cons are minor. No image stabilization. Old. (It already had some years behind it when the D30 was first released.) Fair build quality. Image quality doesn't match modern glass.

Comparing the 24-85 to the 24-105 L:

The L is better in every respect. It doesn't make the 24-85 less usable, but the differences are enough to make this point clear: the ONLY reasons to use the 24-85 over the 24-105 L are if size, weight, and/or cost is a PRIMARY concern.