Old 24-85 USM on full frame?

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.

Does this mirror other people's experiences, particularly on newer bodies? I'm torn between this, the 24-105 STM, and the Sony 24-70/4. I would go with the 24-70/4L, but at 600g it's still a bit too heavy IMO.

ok lens back then but terrible by today's standard i'm sure.  what's next....retreads on the porsche ;^)?

I'm not obsessed.... but there are options for standard lenses that don't weigh 900g. Just exploring them.

fishy wishy wrote:

Maybe there's a Canon equivalent of a Nikkor 28-80 f3.5-5.6. The kind of thing that's about as light and cheap as you could expect to find whilst still be worth using. Since I use walkaround lenses at f8 for landscapes the speed wouldn't much bother me.

There is- the 24-85 3.5-4.5 VR AF-S. It's modern, but there are no Nikon AF adapters worth buying at the moment.

28-xx are no go, I need a 24. I could just get the native 28-70 if that were OK. Not wide enough.

It wouldn't be my choice if good wide performance is your criteria.

If 500gm is too much you should probably go to a smaller system...

sportyaccordy wrote:

Does this mirror other people's experiences, particularly on newer bodies? I'm torn between this, the 24-105 STM, and the Sony 24-70/4. I would go with the 24-70/4L, but at 600g it's still a bit too heavy IMO.

Ever held the 24-105STM in your hands? At 525g, it's a surprisingly chunky lens for what is supposed to be an entry-class zoom. The old 24-105L is 150g heavier on paper, but when attached to a 6D they don't feel as different as you might expect. The chunkiness is only going to be exacerbated with the slim-body-plus-big-adapter nature of your A7II.

Mark B. wrote:

Switch to a smaller system...or join a gym

Already have... and I have one at home. Earlier this year I was squatting + deadlifting 335-345lbs for reps. Strength is not the issue.

Switching systems is not an option either. The FE 24-70/4 will work fine; it's 430g. But it's also $800 used. I don't mind as that's pretty much a straight swap for the Tamron, but if I could get a decent zoom of the same weight for less $$$ why wouldn't I?

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.