Need daily lens suggestion

[AmbientLight]

As the OP is about to order a 7D, I'd guess that any possible migration to FF is years away, if ever.

Hold your horses. Owning and of course using a 7D is exactly what drove me to switch to full-frame in the first place.

Based on my own experience I don't think a 7D is likely to keep people using crop cameras, instead I expect others to come to the same conclusions I came to: Having lots of pro features to play with, but being seriously hampered by the sensor's low-light performance? Purchasing both a 1D-X and a 5D Mark III in a hurry once those two cameras came out was my reaction to that. This is why I think Neuro's statement is right on the money.

[Zv]

Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF any time soon, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.

Depends on what 'any time soon' means.  The high end EF-S lenses hold their value well.  I lost ~$50 on the 10-22mm and ~$100 on the 17-55mm, after 1 and close to 3 years of use, respectively.  If 'soon' is next month, fine. If it's 'sometime in the future, I hope' then get the best lens(es) for the body you have now.

+1

As the OP is about to order a 7D, I'd guess that any possible migration to FF is years away, if ever. EF-S, and more specifically, the 17-55 is the way to go. I used a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS on crop for years, and while it does encourage lens swapping, I can't remember any times where I needed the 55-70 range.

The 10-22 and 17-55 don't hold their value that well. I lost about $120 on the 10-22mm (mainly due to a quick sale) and the 17-55 isn't bloody selling at all. Some sellers are selling it for ¥66,000, considering it's ¥105,000 new I'd say they are losing money on it big time! I'm sorry but the 17-55 is a good lens but I'd stay away from ef-s right now. Get a used 24-105L that someone is selling off from their kit. That way you can still use it on FF and if you sell it you'll likely get most of your money back.

[captainkanji]

The 17-55 2.8 is the way to go. I had it when I owned the 7D, and it is fantastic. IMO it is the best EF-S lens Canon makes. I was able to sell it for almost as much as I paid for it (I bought it used). It only came off my camera when I needed the reach of the 70-700 f4 (another great lens for the 7D).

[Jim O]

Based on my own experience I don't think a 7D is likely to keep people using crop cameras, instead I expect others to come to the same conclusions I came to: Having lots of pro features to play with, but being seriously hampered by the sensor's low-light performance? Purchasing both a 1D-X and a 5D Mark III in a hurry once those two cameras came out was my reaction to that...

I'm not sure that most people who don't make a lot of money with their cameras or who don't have $10K burning a hole in their pockets go down that road.

Current Adorama prices:

7D:
New - $1499
Canon Refurb 7D - $999 (special now - they're $1199 at Canon)
Used (E) - $869

5D3:
New - $3499
Canon refurb - N/A (available at Canon store for $2,799.21)
Used (E) - $2989

1D X:
New - $6799
Canon refurb - N/A ($5493.20 at Canon store when available)
Used (E+) - $6249

You're talking about replacing a $1500 camera (one that you can get for $999 as a Canon refurb!) with $10,000 worth of cameras. Of course if you're going to buy those two bodies you'll also *need* a $2300 24-70 II which you might not get with the 7D. You might have the EF-S 17-55 2.8 and have no use for it.

I think a lot of 7D owners will wait for the 7D2, plunk down $2K or so for it and be happy staying with a crop sensor, depending of course on what Canon actually produces in the 7D2.

[brad-man]

Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF any time soon, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.

Depends on what 'any time soon' means.  The high end EF-S lenses hold their value well.  I lost ~$50 on the 10-22mm and ~$100 on the 17-55mm, after 1 and close to 3 years of use, respectively.  If 'soon' is next month, fine. If it's 'sometime in the future, I hope' then get the best lens(es) for the body you have now.

+1

As the OP is about to order a 7D, I'd guess that any possible migration to FF is years away, if ever. EF-S, and more specifically, the 17-55 is the way to go. I used a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS on crop for years, and while it does encourage lens swapping, I can't remember any times where I needed the 55-70 range.

The 10-22 and 17-55 don't hold their value that well. I lost about $120 on the 10-22mm (mainly due to a quick sale) and the 17-55 isn't bloody selling at all. Some sellers are selling it for ¥66,000, considering it's ¥105,000 new I'd say they are losing money on it big time! I'm sorry but the 17-55 is a good lens but I'd stay away from ef-s right now. Get a used 24-105L that someone is selling off from their kit. That way you can still use it on FF and if you sell it you'll likely get most of your money back.

This makes more sense to me. The 24-105 is selling for a very reasonable price and I used it for years (it was my first L lens) on my 550D with great results. My second L lens was the 17-40. That combo served me well for a quite a few years and I still have both. If the OP were to purchase the Tamron (like I ended up doing), the only possible "upgrade" to that lens would be (arguably) the EF240-70 mkll. I don't even see that as an upgrade, since I highly value the stabilisation of the Tammy. In either event, the OP wouldn't need to upgrade if he later purchased a 6D, 5Dlll or whatever and could use them on both cameras.

[TexasBadger]

You do realize that the Canon motor drive MF had a top speed of 3.5 frames/second.  It would burn through a 36 exposure roll in ten seconds!  That was plenty fast for sports photography back then.  The 5D3 has a framerate of 6 fps.  I would be more concerned with a camera that has a better autofocus system and better high ISO performance.  Shutter speed is usually the critical factor in sports photography.  If you also want some reasonable DOF, you will need to increase the ISO.  Do yourself a favor and get a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 5D3.  You will not regret it and you will not end up with crop lenses down the road.  Six frames/second is a lot faster than you think.  Once you start processing your images you will see what I mean.  If you cannot get the shot at 6 fps, you probably won't at 8 fps.  Especially with an inferior autofocus system and inferior high ISO performance.  When shooting sports, the goal is usually one great shot of a particular play or action.  Not several mediocre shots that are out of focus or so noisy that you have to overprocess them to get rid of noise.  When you overprocess to reduce noise, you reduce sharpness.  Now what advantage does that extra 2 fps get you...

[dstppy]

What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses? 

I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.

I *DO* have a bad case of 'accessoritis' or 'upgradaphilia', so to the OP, if you're the type that's not content with technology and constantly upgrading . . . the EF-S lenses are great, but you may have some regret down the road.

I know, admitting I have a problem is the first step.   

[FEBS]

I fully agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very good choise for APS-C.

However, a year ago I did also buy a 7D. After some months I regretted that I didn't choose directly for a 5Diii. In mean time, I did allready buy the 5Diii. Even for sports this is a very nice device. I'm not directly missing the difference in FPS. I know I have less photos to choose from, but more of them are right in focus. So at the end, I have more keepers.

I still have my 7D as a backup. I thought I would need it for the supplemental reach, but cropping on the 5Diii is that much beter.

[phoyager]

About to pull the trigger on a 7d body as I need the speed for football and baseball games.

Good cam for this but be aware of the not-so-nice ISO performance.

I have access to a 70-200 2.8 IS for this which is great,

If sport is your primary area of interest you will probably want to upgrade to a 300 soon. The new 120-300 from Sigma would be an option, 'cause colleagues say it's optically close to the old 70-200/2.8; just the AF is a bit slower.

I need some suggestions on what I should get for my daily lens.

Canon 24-105 f/4L IS

From my personal experience a very nice bread-and-butter lens. Sturdy with [depending on the specific sample of this lens] good to pretty-nice image quality. On the short end it's a bit long when used with a 1.6 crop (field of view 38mm) but the crop gives it quite a bit more reach on the long end, which from my experience is many times nice to have.
The f4 might be a bit slow, but it's not too bad unless you work a lot under low-light conditions without the ability to add flash. In regards to your implicit question about low light, 2.8 and a 50mm I would say that most of the time you will want to have smth faster than 2.8 when working in low light while rather needing a wider lens, especially on crop. Therefor I wouldn't so much aim for a 50/1.4 but rather a Sigma 35/1.4 or a Canon 24/1.4.

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC

I bought this lens and while the image quality is really good it drove me crazy that everything works contrary to what Canon implements. Might be a lesser problem when you have only 1 Body and don't change lenses a lot, but it's still smth you should try out [by renting the lens] before you spit out the cash. My lens is looking for a new owner after just a few days of use....

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

I never owned or used this lens and while it's certainly an option I wonder if it's worth the money. Especially if you take into account that it's EF-S and therefor useless in case you ever upgrade to APS-H (1DMkIV) or Full Frame.

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS

Have no experience with this lens. But despite the presumably better image quality when compared to the 24-105 I would still choose the latter because of the 105mm vs. 70.


Conclusion:
If I were you, I would buy the 24-105. I bought mine in 2006 and it's still working on a daily base despite many harsh working conditions like rain, dust, expeditionary off-road, riots and war. Not all of these lenses offer the same IQ and it was a difficult moment, when I had to return a borrowed 24-105 which, as I found out, was quite a bit sharper than mine.
FWIW, in all these years I had three repairs: First one in early 2012 when it wouldn't zoom correctly, one in the end of 2012 because the lens developed a severe Zoom-creep (from wear) and another one in 2012 when I decided to replace the rubber-sealing on the mount during a C&C because it looked like been attacked by mice... 

[wsmith96]

I'm in the same position as the OP.  I've got an older camera but am wanting to upgrade for my kids' sporting events coming up this school year.  I chose to upgrade my glass first, then the camera.  I've got the 17-55 and agree that it is a fantastic everyday lens.   I don't have experience with the 15-85, but I also hear it's a great lens too, but not sure what to expect once you go inside (may end up being a non-issue). Admittedly, there are some days that I wish my 17-55 went to 85mm for situations where I just can't get any closer.

Regarding EF-S/EF.  That's a tough one.  I chose to upgrade my EF-S glass with EF-S for now.  In the long term I'll move to FF with the expectation that I'll be able to purchase a bundle like the 6D/24-105.  With my EF 70-300 (soon to be a 70-200 F2.8 - just waiting on a sale), I won't miss out on the majority of my shots being covered from 24-200.  I can pick up a WA lens later if I feel I need wider that 24mm.   

I can then either sell my rebel kit, or keep it and let my kids use it.  Either way, I have fun with what I have and won't regret "money lost" as I feel I gained more than the cost.   Of course ask me that again if I had all L glass and a 1DX, then I may have a different answer

[farmdwg]

All this info is great and very helpful (adding more cloud to the decision making process  .

As for crop vs FF, I don't see myself going FF any time soon since I don't see FF keeping up with the baseball/football speed requirements.

[Eldar]

All this info is great and very helpful (adding more cloud to the decision making process  .

As for crop vs FF, I don't see myself going FF any time soon since I don't see FF keeping up with the baseball/football speed requirements.

Eeehhhh ... Speed requirements??? 1DX 12fps, 70-200 f2.8L IS II or 300 f2.8L IS II or 400 f2.8L IS II ... all with the fastest most accurate AF you can get. Where does crop have an advantage???

[farmdwg]

It all comes down to $$$$.

7D new is $1050 and the 1DX is what $4k?

[Random Orbits]

What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses? 

I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.

I *DO* have a bad case of 'accessoritis' or 'upgradaphilia', so to the OP, if you're the type that's not content with technology and constantly upgrading . . . the EF-S lenses are great, but you may have some regret down the road.

I know, admitting I have a problem is the first step.   

I sold my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 last year for about 850 and my refurbed 10-22 for 600.  I "lost" about 100 on the 17-55 and less than 50 (including taxes, shipping, etc.) on the 10-22, so I was able to recoup about 90% of what it cost me to purchase the lenses.

There are so many used 17-55s and 10-22s floating around that buying new makes less and less sense.  Canon refurb with a sale is usually a good deal.  I'm guessing that EF-S lenses tend to have lower resale value because they are transitional for those that do move to FF.  Some L-lenses also have lower resale value.  Think of those that purchased a 24-105 in a retail box at 1000-1100 a year or two ago.  The kit value used to be 800-900, and now it's dropped to 600-700.  That's worse resale value than the 17-55.  Again the 24-105 is a transitional lens.

Those that get gear when it is first available tend to pay the most.  Those that wait for rebates and sales pay less, and those that buy refurbed or used pay even less.  If you hold onto the lens for a few years and then try to sell it, you'll get roughly the same price, so buying the gear at the lowest price is key.


And +1 to those recommending the 17-55 f/2.8.  The smaller sensor needs all the light it can get, which is why Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is such an attractive option.

[papa-razzi]

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  The 24-xx zooms are great on FF, but on APS-C they don't give you a wide angle.  IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

+1  General purpose often means indoors, and unless you want to wear a flash on your camera or use the pop up, you will want the f/2.8.

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-55.  I never use the 24-105 indoors, it isn't wide enough or fast enough. 

The 15-85 is very sharp and gives extra range either side of the 17-55.  It's one of the best and most useful APS-C lenses made.

Ask yourself how much you shoot indoors with your general purpose lens.  I had a friend that had a 15-85 on a 7D and we were at a cubscout pinewood derby event, in an church gym.  A flash wasn't useable due to the distance most of the time.  He couldn't get decent pics.  After that he sold the 15-85 and bought a 17-55.

Regarding buying all EF lenses because at some point you will upgrade to FF.  I personally think this is flawed thinking.  Buy the best lenses for the camera you have and will be using.  Especially if it is the main lens that will be on your camera most of the time.  If you get a FF camera, you will either keep the crop camera and still use the lenses, or sell the camera with the lenses.  With Canon lenses you don't lose much money on the resale.