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

[Jim K]

From what you say I'd think the 17-55 f/2.8 would be the way to go. It will give you more quality than your present kit lens and the f/2.8 will also be nice. It is a quality lens. My "all around lens" on my 7D is the 15-85 which works out to a 24-136 on a FF but then I shoot outdoors and want the wider view. Wanted the 50 f/1.4 but don't do any available light work so decided to save the money.

I don't think the 24-105 f/4L would give you as much for your type work. If you are thinking that you would have the FF lens if you went FF in three or four years you may find that the 5D IV, or whatever it is, comes with a new kit lens that is better than the present 24-105 at a very good price.

I've had a 24-105 for almost two years (kit with the 5D3) and have never had it in my 7Ds. They get the 15-85, the 70-200 f/4L IS and beyond. I don't think they have gotten the 10-22 either since I now use the 17-40 on the 5D3 (landscapes). Good luck with your decision.

 

[gsealy]

You all are probably more experienced than I am. But it seems to me that using a prime lens with the 7D might be a good option. The 7D is an action oriented camera and you want quick focus. So if you can select a prime that is reasonably close to what you want then you have removed one variation and you can achieve focus faster. Then too, because you have a prime lens then you will get really sharp photos that can be cropped down to the piece that you want and still look great. Just a thought.

 

[K13X5C]

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.

Yeah, neuro you are right, I forgot about the price drop. Thanks for catching that. I am glad I bought mine at $700, although it is a sweet deal at $830 or $780, too.

 

[Don Haines]

I have a 17-55... it is a fine lens and I love it... but lately I have been trying to get good pictures of small birds, and for that, my go-to lens is a 70-200F4. The rest of the time it's the 17-55..... unless I am hiking and then the go-to lens becomes the 18-200...

 

[gshocked]

Hi,

I used the 24-105 for a while on a 7D and found it a great combo then one day put a EFS 18-135 back on and it honestly missed the wider angles. Buying a "L" lens has its benefits but if your not going to full frame any time soon, I'm not sure it's worth it.

I regards to your choices are the EFS 17-55 and the EF 24-104 the only lenses your considering?

If cost is an issues have you considered these:

the revised Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS "Contemporary" Lens is a nice. It's an EFS only lens and it has a little more reach than the Canon 17-55.
The EFS 18-135 STM lens is also very handy. I do some video on the side I've the STM lens to be very quite and seems reasonably fast to focus.

Just some food for thought.

 

[MYB]

Hi,
I'm not experienced for advice something but i've bought 70D with Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. It's good enough imo.

 

[DaveMiko]

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

For a crop-sensor the 17-55 makes more sense than the 24-105. I had a 7D and I found that the 24-105 wasn't wide enough (but still very useful in most situations). The 17-55, however, has been produced specifically for crop-sensor cameras, so you might consider that for your 7D.

 

[Sanaraken]

17-55 f2.8IS is the best lens for crop other than the sigma 18-35 f1.8. Pair the 17-55 with a 70-200 f4IS or 70-200 f2.8II and your set.

 

[alexturton]

Are you planning on going full frame? If not, the 17-55 is a great choice; I use one with my 60d

 

[FTb-n]

Before going full frame, I used a 70-200 f2.8L II on the 7D and the 17-55 f2.8 on the 60D. I highly recommend both lenses. In my case, with sports and events, the 70-200 was my main lens. On the 5D3, it's still my main lens.

But, for a "normal" zoom on crop, the 17-55 can't be beat. The f2.8 is more important to me than the extra reach of 105mm on the f4.0 zoom.

If full frame is just around the corner, then look into a 5D3/24-105 or a 6D/24-105 kit. If not, I suspect that you will get more out of your 7D with the 17-55, than the 24-105.

 

[Skatol]

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

Based on your statements (in bold) I would recommend the 24-105 IF you plan on going full frame and want the extra reach. I had the 17-55 but later sold it for future plans of moving to FF ($200 rental fee for two years). I use the 24-105 for my walk around lens, previously on the 7D and now on the 5DIII. Since you have the 50mm I think this covers your shallow DOF needs. After checking your photos I think you will be quite satisfied with the 24-105. If a zoom is not required you may want to check out the 100L IS. This would give you the reach and DOF.

 

[jimc8p]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

 

[Zv]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

When I bought my 17-55 I noticed I hardly touched my 50 1.8 anymore. The reason being that the 50 was only really got good around f/2.8 and the 17-55 covered that nicely. I've never owned the 1.4 but from what I hear it's good around f2. Might be worth it just to wait for the Sigma and possibly the Canon update before getting the 50 1.4, and in the meantime use the f1.8. I always ended up choosing f/2.8 with IS over the (soft) f1.8 with no IS but that's just my shooting pref, maybe you're different.

I highly recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS, the image quality is really amazing. Only issue with this on crop is you're limited slightly by the f/4 aperture. If you shoot indoors it can be an issue as you'll end up cranking up the ISO to 3200 and on a 7D things start looking real noisy.

An alternative might be the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC.

 

[Don Haines]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

My walk around setup is the 17-55 and the 70-200F4IS plus a 1.4X teleconverter..... it covers a huge range with quality and is quite portable... I'm heading out the door with that in a few minutes....

When I am travelling heavier, there is a flash, a 10-20, a 100L, and a 30F1.4 added into the kit for more versatility.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

What's blatantly missing is IS in your 70-200, I'm not going to sum up all of the plusses, but I would seriously consider the IS model if I were you, also because it is optically superior to the non-IS model.

 

[hendrik-sg]

If you have 1000$ to spend, you can get a 17-55 or a 24-105 and use them for your 7d.

Or you could sell the 7d and buy a 6d & 24-105 kit for more less the same price.

Only advantages of your 7d are speed and better AF. Your current 17-85 is f5.6 at the long end, and the new lens is f4.0. A 6d gives you about 1.5 stops of low light capability and shallow depth of field, and the lens gives you another one at the long end.

if you want to change your 50 1.8 you can replace it by a 85 1.8 for about the same Price, and this one is said to be really good (i dont own it).

 

[Zv]

If you have 1000$ to spend, you can get a 17-55 or a 24-105 and use them for your 7d.

Or you could sell the 7d and buy a 6d & 24-105 kit for more less the same price.

Only advantages of your 7d are speed and better AF. Your current 17-85 is f5.6 at the long end, and the new lens is f4.0. A 6d gives you about 1.5 stops of low light capability and shallow depth of field, and the lens gives you another one at the long end.

if you want to change your 50 1.8 you can replace it by a 85 1.8 for about the same Price, and this one is said to be really good (i dont own it).

The 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 are most certainly NOT the same price!!

 

[surapon]

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

Dear friend jimc8p.
Yes, You use 7D now, But in the near future --You will buy another FF camera when the price is right. YES, THAT I RECOMMEND you to buy only EF Lens, Not Buy EF-S Lens. EF Lenses are for both Small sensor Camera and Full Frame Camera----BUT EF-S Lens can use only Small sensor cameras, Not FF cameras because the back of Lens too long and can hit the movable Mirror of FF Camera. Yes, Canon Lenses, Sigma Lenses and Tamron Lenses are great Lenses too, Depend on the money that you will spend. No, I will not tell you what Lens that Best for youy, Because all Photographers like us have very difference styles of photography that we love.
You can go to local Camera shop and test RUN of some Lenses that you Needs before you buy.
Good Luck.
Surapon

 

[bholliman]

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

I think either of these combinations will work very well. As others have pointed out IS is really useful for longer focal lengths, I suggest getting the EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS if you can afford it. Optically, the non-IS is excellent, but I think IS is worth the difference in price unless you use a tripod most of the time.

I use my 50 1.4 at f/1.8 and up, so I think it does have a place for shallow DOF photography. The 17-55 is great, but f/2.8 isn't that wide on a crop body, I think you will need a lens with better shallow DOF capability if you skip the prime.

 

[sleepyphotog]

My 17-85mm recently started acting up (err code 01) and I am considering sending it to Canon for repair. But between shipping and repair costs, the whole thing will end up costing me close to $200. Is it worth it, or should I use this opportunity to upgrade my lens? I'm debating between the 24-105 f4 or the 15-85mm.

Fyi, I will mainly use this as a travel lens. I almost always use Canon's 35mm prime (90% or more of the time). But for travel and vacations, I find I prefer the utility of zoom lenses.

Thanks everyone.