EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D

[SJ]

IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.

Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.

I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.

Thanks..

 

[SJ]

IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.

Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.

I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.

how about my ef-s 10-22 combo with prime like sigma 35mm f/1.4 & ef 50mm f/1.4. but i thought it become more challenging because i never use a prime before. i just use my 10-22mm for landscape & 18-135 for general

 

[Random Orbits]

how about my ef-s 10-22 combo with prime like sigma 35mm f/1.4 & ef 50mm f/1.4. but i thought it become more challenging because i never use a prime before. i just use my 10-22mm for landscape & 18-135 for general

Primes are nice although I would suggest getting them one at time to see if it works for you. I currently use primes for the midrange and zooms for the wide and telephoto focal lengths.

 

[Area256]

IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.

Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.

I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.

+1 I used the 24-105mm on a 60D for a while, and also had the 10-22mm - and I found myself changing lenses a lot, and carrying them both around all the time. The 16-35mm, or even the 17-40mm would seem to make for a better crop camera lens (if you want to leave the full frame option open).

Of course a lot depends on what you shoot. If you want to have access to the longer range, and don't care much about having the wide angle, the 24-70 could work well..

 

[azezal]

17-55mm all the way cracking lens. Unless you plan on going full frame, then i would say get the 24-70mm MKI because the MKII IMO isnt worth another £1000!!!! Insane. Regardless how much better it is it isnt £1000 better.

I had bad luck with the 17-55 as the IS motor failed while still under warranty. Image quality was excellent, but my impression was that the lens didn't seem to have a build quality to match its price. The new 24-70 II is expensive, but both image quality and build quality seem to be a match for the price.

Similar experience steered me off the efs route,used to love the 17-55,thankfully it wasn't my lens

 

[M.ST]

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L performs very well on the 7D.

It´s is better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but the focal lenght start at 24 mm. You have to chance often to the super wide angle lens.

Compared to the price of a 7D and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS I can´t recommend the lens for APS-C.

If you have the money, want the lens and add a FF camera to your 7D in the next year then get the lens. The image quality of the lens on APS-C is amazing and much better than on FF cameras.

 

[SJ]

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L performs very well on the 7D.

It´s is better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but the focal lenght start at 24 mm. You have to chance often to the super wide angle lens.

Compared to the price of a 7D and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS I can´t recommend the lens for APS-C.

If you have the money, want the lens and add a FF camera to your 7D in the next year then get the lens. The image quality of the lens on APS-C is amazing and much better than on FF cameras.

Thanks friend

 

[serendipidy]

Recently got the new 24-70L II. At my age, not much looks sharp even with my glasses ;D. Haven't been out much but I did take this photo yesterday. It was very cloudy and windy with some drizzle and haze. 7D @47mm, f/8.0, 1/1000s, ISO 100 handheld. PP in Canon DPP.

 

[BrandonKing96]

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

 

[SJ]

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light?

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (without using speedlight) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on focal X 1.6 to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5

btw, thanks for sharing

 

[BrandonKing96]

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light?

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (without using speedlight) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on focal X 1.6 to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5

btw, thanks for sharing

To me, it performs brilliantly! Even though I've only got that 9 AF point compared to your 19 (lol I think it's that).
You'll be blown away by it's f/2.8 performance for low light. I was! I only had 3.5 as my fastest before as well (coincidentally, the 10-22). But even so I think when I finally add some primes after I upgrade to 5D III, those low light performances will absolutely shock me at what I've been missing out on haha
And also, it may just be harder to get the sharper shots due to the weight of the lens. But you get used to it. I'm used to it now after only 2 weeks of having it! But I've learned not to be afraide to jump up to ISO 2500 now.. even 3200 (although i'm using it on a 60D). But I think you'll find you'll be quite please with this lens if you choose to get it.
But this is me talking about the 24-70 II still, not including the 17-55. perhaps someone would come along with information to sway your decision. But both lenses are amazing lenses. The 17-55 is good for it's price, but pointless if you upgrade to full frame in the near future, and the 24-70 II is worth it's money!

 

[SJ]

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light?

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (without using speedlight) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on focal X 1.6 to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5

btw, thanks for sharing

To me, it performs brilliantly! Even though I've only got that 9 AF point compared to your 19 (lol I think it's that).
You'll be blown away by it's f/2.8 performance for low light. I was! I only had 3.5 as my fastest before as well (coincidentally, the 10-22). But even so I think when I finally add some primes after I upgrade to 5D III, those low light performances will absolutely shock me at what I've been missing out on haha
And also, it may just be harder to get the sharper shots due to the weight of the lens. But you get used to it. I'm used to it now after only 2 weeks of having it! But I've learned not to be afraide to jump up to ISO 2500 now.. even 3200 (although i'm using it on a 60D). But I think you'll find you'll be quite please with this lens if you choose to get it.
But this is me talking about the 24-70 II still, not including the 17-55. perhaps someone would come along with information to sway your decision. But both lenses are amazing lenses. The 17-55 is good for it's price, but pointless if you upgrade to full frame in the near future, and the 24-70 II is worth it's money!

Thanks for sharing BrandonKing96, im very excited to get this lens

 

[BrandonKing96]

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light?

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (without using speedlight) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on focal X 1.6 to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5

btw, thanks for sharing

To me, it performs brilliantly! Even though I've only got that 9 AF point compared to your 19 (lol I think it's that).
You'll be blown away by it's f/2.8 performance for low light. I was! I only had 3.5 as my fastest before as well (coincidentally, the 10-22). But even so I think when I finally add some primes after I upgrade to 5D III, those low light performances will absolutely shock me at what I've been missing out on haha
And also, it may just be harder to get the sharper shots due to the weight of the lens. But you get used to it. I'm used to it now after only 2 weeks of having it! But I've learned not to be afraide to jump up to ISO 2500 now.. even 3200 (although i'm using it on a 60D). But I think you'll find you'll be quite please with this lens if you choose to get it.
But this is me talking about the 24-70 II still, not including the 17-55. perhaps someone would come along with information to sway your decision. But both lenses are amazing lenses. The 17-55 is good for it's price, but pointless if you upgrade to full frame in the near future, and the 24-70 II is worth it's money!

Thanks for sharing BrandonKing96, im very excited to get this lens

No problem! I suppose the best advice I can give is to just get a chance to play with either as much as possible to see which one you'd prefer or would suit you more. Go to a shop that allows you to play with both, or rent the two for a bit (if you feel like spending the money though) and just see which one would do better for you

 

[SJ]

Finally i got my 24-70 f/2.8L II USM + Carl Zeiss 82mm uv filter, it's very sharp lens. AF sometime a bit hunting at low light on my 7D, i thought 10-22 have faster AF than 24-70II at low light.

thanks everybody for sharing idea, comment, experience about this lens.

 

[BrandonKing96]

Congratulations! Enjoy it.

 

[Radiating]

Hi everybody,

I have 7D + EF-S 10-22mm & i plan to buy the new EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM, but im not sure this lens can give the top IQ on crop sensor like 7D.

Anybody 7D owner have this lens? maybe you can share your photo/review about this lens.

Thanks.

Tests show that good copies of this lens perform better than the 15-85mm and bad copies perform worse than the 15-85mm on the 7D.

The 17-55mm performs much better on the other hand. And has IS.

If you're spending that much money though why not buy a 6D and a 24-105mm, it will delivery better image quality in every measurable and conceivable way, be equivalent to f/2.5 which is a faster f stop, have more megapixels, AND will have a greater equivalent focal range.