7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?

[jimc8p]

Hi

I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM. Below are a couple of links to my stuff for reference.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/Portrait-Photography/2075548
https://www.behance.net/gallery/Photography/775988

Any advice greatly appreciated!


----Sorry, moved this from the Rumors forum

 

[wickidwombat]

the 15-85 is stellar and well worth a look too it blows the doors off the 17-85
and is a better fit on a crop over the 24-105

i would also got the new sigma 18-35 f1.8 over the 17-55 f2.8 if you are looking for something fast

 

[Loswr]

24-105 is normal-to-tele on APS-C, no wide angle. It doesn't really fit the purpose of a walkaround lens, IMO (but it's great on FF). I think the 17-55 is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C bodies. If you want to trade aperture for focal length, the 15-85 is a good choice (optically better than the 17-85).

 

[K13X5C]

For me I prefer to spend my dollars on IQ and walk a few steps to get the framing I want. I have the 17-55 and for a crop body I think it's the best you can get for a normal zoom, the FF equivalent is 27-88. I think it's better than the 17-40 L on a crop, which I tried and didn't like for several reasons. I had both at the same time for awhile and it wasn't a tough decision, for me, to sell the 17-40. The f/2.8 is very helpful on a crop, particularly on an older body like the 7D that doesn't have great high ISO capabilities. Indoors and late in the day it makes an appreciable difference.

The 24-105 is 38-168 on FF and it's an f/4. For me the f/4 is a no go, and the 38mm at the wide end doesn't work for me either. Although I'd love the long end of the 24-105. But, I have the 70-200 f/4 IS L to cover that.

If you do go with the 24-105 the EF-S 10-22 might complement it nicely, but the f/3.5-4.5 and no IS isn't much help in low light on a 7D. I have the 10-22 and it does a nice job for the wider shots outdoors. It's about as good or better than anything else in that focal range on a crop.

What are you using for the long end of your range. A 70-200 ?

Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient. So there's your future proofing. Buy a good used copy at a fair price (I know, easier said than done) and your set to try it out for little or nothing. Then again if you can find a used 24-105 cheap (that is an easier proposition these days) you can do the same thing. And there are like new, or brand new, 24-105 kit lenses being sold for $700-$800 in these parts, almost everyday it seems. Someone sold one for $640 recently, desperate I suppose. But I'm not so sure the 24-105 will hold it's current value. Maybe, maybe not.

Good luck choosing.

 

[pj1974]

My personal favourite is the 15-85mm (I love that focal length / flexibility). I used to have the Canon 28-135mm (sort of similar to the 24-105mm L in some ways, though not the same quality as the L. My copy of the 28-135mm was a good one, had decent sharpness & contrast wide open, 1 stop down was good (but not as good as the 15-85mm).

I have used the 17-55mm f/2.8 and found it a great lens too, but I preferred the 15-85mm, probably because when I want 'fast glass' - I want faster than f/2.8 anyway... so that's when I go for primes. So the 15-85mm - which I mainly use outdoors is great.

The 17-85mm really suffered at wide angle (soft, distortions and higher CA).

I like your portfolios of work.. .so great, creative shots in there... you have a good eye for photos. Some of the more 'arty' post processing is skillful, but it's not my style. Thanks for sharing. I can see how you have used the 50mm well. I'm waiting for a new, stellar 50mm to come out from Canon!

PJ

 

[Loswr]

Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient.

Four years ago, they were selling for around $1000 new. Not long ago, Canon dropped the price to $829, and during the last rebates it sold for $779. Good for people wanting to buy one new, bad news for people who paid $1K and want to sell it now (I sold mine before the price drop, fortunately).

Maybe you could sell it for $700 or more...not to me, but P.T. Barnum had a point.

 

[danski0224]

Hi

I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM.
Any advice greatly appreciated!

Given the two lenses in your post, and references to low light shooting and shallow depth of field also in your post, the only one to choose is the 17-55.

 

[2n10]

Hi

I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM. Below are a couple of links to my stuff for reference.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/Portrait-Photography/2075548
https://www.behance.net/gallery/Photography/775988

Any advice greatly appreciated!


----Sorry, moved this from the Rumors forum

I agree the 17-55 is the way to go based on your post.

 

[2n10]

Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient.

Four years ago, they were selling for around $1000 new. Not long ago, Canon dropped the price to $829, and during the last rebates it sold for $779. Good for people wanting to buy one new, bad news for people who paid $1K and want to sell it now (I sold mine before the price drop, fortunately).

Maybe you could sell it for $700 or more...not to me, but P.T. Barnum had a point.

I am glad I am still enjoying the services of the lens since I did buy it at $1K. Thankfully I don't worry about resale prices on my lenses since the value received from use far out weighs any loss in value. I guess I would consider it a good rental rate if I did sell.

 

[Viper28]

I have the 24-105L/4 as the general carry round on my 7D and its a great alround lens, it is however not as wide as I'd like, the 17-55 would have been better in that respect. The issue however was I did not want to buy a EFs lens in case I go for a FF in the near future.

 

[danski0224]

Buy the 17-55 now and enjoy it. Sell it later, call the difference a rental.

 

[Dylan777]

@ OP

As an owner both these lenses in the past, I would take 17-55 over 24-105 anytimes. The 17-55 is one of the best lenses for crop in Canon lineup. The 17-55 reminds me of my current Canon 24-70 f2.8 II.

 

[mackguyver]

+3, 4, or whatever we're up to on the 17-55.

 

[bholliman]

My personal favourite is the 15-85mm (I love that focal length / flexibility). I used to have the Canon 28-135mm (sort of similar to the 24-105mm L in some ways, though not the same quality as the L. My copy of the 28-135mm was a good one, had decent sharpness & contrast wide open, 1 stop down was good (but not as good as the 15-85mm).

I have used the 17-55mm f/2.8 and found it a great lens too, but I preferred the 15-85mm, probably because when I want 'fast glass' - I want faster than f/2.8 anyway... so that's when I go for primes. So the 15-85mm - which I mainly use outdoors is great.

PJ

+1 While agree that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is a terrific lens, f/2.8 (equivalent to f/4.5 on a full format body) really isn't that fast on a crop body and may not give you the shallow DOF you are looking for in your portraits. You really need f/2.0 or faster, and for that you need to go with primes or the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. So, I would probably go with PJ's suggestion of the EF-S 15-85 and some fast primes like the EF 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 to handle your shallow DOF shots. The focal range of the 15-85 is really nice (I especially like 15mm over 17mm on the wide end) and the aperture is fine for outdoor shooting or indoors with flash.

 

[eLroberto]

I used the 24-105 for a long time on my 7D. It takes time to feel comfortable with 24mm on a crop DSLR, but its a great lens if you use it outdoors, especially cause its sealed. For walk around I mostly use the Sigma 18-35 at the moment. The IQ of this lens is really great, even at f/1.8! But at the long end its a bit to short quite often. But all in all I would recommend you the 24-105 if you feel fine with 24mm on a crop.

Kind regards,
Robert

 

[mkabi]

I used the 24-105 for a long time on my 7D. It takes time to feel comfortable with 24mm on a crop DSLR, but its a great lens if you use it outdoors, especially cause its sealed. For walk around I mostly use the Sigma 18-35 at the moment. The IQ of this lens is really great, even at f/1.8! But at the long end its a bit to short quite often. But all in all I would recommend you the 24-105 if you feel fine with 24mm on a crop.

Kind regards,
Robert

I feel the same, but I believe that everyone should figure out what end of the spectrum you use on the zoom.
I mean, if you relatively stay at 17mm, sometimes go to 35mm, rarely go to 50mm and once in a blue moon hit all the way to 85mm. Then I would suspect that you know what lens to get; yet again, that's something that you need to figure out for yourself.

If you do go for the Sigma 18-35mm, remember you are trading it up for reach, but really if you can get close to the subject... then get close to the subject!

 

[Zv]

I've used both on a 7D and I reckon the 17-55 is the better choice. The extra stop is essential on the 7D. Also the 17-55 is tack sharp at f/4 whereas the 24-105 is a little soft. On crop f/2.8 is good for portraits, you get some shallow dof with a little margin for error. F/4 is nice too when I want more detail.

The only adv for the 24-105 is reach. However, I would opt for a cheap tele like the 85 1.8 as it would compliment the 17-55. Together you'd cover the portrait range (50mm - 135mm) quite nicely.

To be honest am not a big fan of the 24-105, it hasn't impressed me after selling my 17-55 for it. Seems mushy at the ends and f/4 is not that great. Very limiting on a 7D when you have to stop down to 5.6 or 8. 35-70mm is good though (those are good portrait lengths on crop too funnily enough).

 

[mrsfotografie]

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.

May I suggest the Sigma 30 mm A 8)

 

[alexturton]

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.

May I suggest the Sigma 30 mm A 8)

+1

 

[unfocused]

With the parameters you've listed, I think this is a tough choice.

For years I used the 15-85mm zoom as my "go to" lens on the 7D. Coupled with the 70-300 "L" they make a near perfect travel kit. I take other lenses with me, but they often stay in the bag. These two pretty much cover any situation.

Now, with the 5DIII it's the 24-105 and the 70-300 (although I miss the reach of the 7D, but still adapting)

Anyway, if you don't shoot at the wide end and prefer the long end of the 17-85, then I wouldn't recommend the 17-55. It's just too short. But, on the other hand, the 24-105 sacrifices anything close to wide angle if you use it on a 7D, so if you ever do want a wide angle, you can't have it with the 24-105.

The difference is only one stop, so I'm not sure the f2.8 offers enough of an advantage to offset the disadvantages of the short focal range.

Personally, I wouldn't sell the 50 f1.8 unless you absolutely never use it. It's always going to be faster than a zoom and for what you'll have to sell it for, it's hardly worth it.

I don't know if you have the option to rent lenses, but you might want to consider that to see what works best and if the advantages justify the expense in your mind.

A few crazy ideas just to stir things up a bit:

The 55-250 EF-S is one of the best bargain lenses available. It's very sharp and has IS. If you really do like shooting at the long end, it's a very cheap option.

For portraits, either the 100mm "L" macro or the 85 1.8 are good options. The 85 1.8 is a great bargain as well and gives you some speed for low light. The 100 "L" macro is a bit pricier but extremely sharp and it has IS and is a macro to boot. I've used both with a 7D and they make very nice, flattering portrait lenses that enable you to separate out the subject from the background.

I strongly disagree with those who suggest you can just get a shorter lens and move in closer. It just doesn't have the same look. If you like the look that a longer lens gives you, you have to use a longer lens. That's just the way it is.