Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj1575
That's a good point. I've still been searching for a general purpose lens for my 7d, so thanks for asking this question. Reading all this helps!
I know this lens would not be a great general purpose lens, but I recently shot with my friends 10-22m and it was great, esp since I was taking landscape shots.
As far as general purpose, I'm really leaning towards the 17-55mm. I do plan on renting it soon, so I'll let you know how I liked it,
Yeah, I think FF zooms on an APS-C body don't quite work. I had a 24-105 but sold it. I am thinking of the 17-55mm also. I HAD the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 before the IS version came out. It was a decent lens but certainly not on par with everything else mentioned here. Maybe the IS version is better in other ways, but if it's the SAME thing just with IS... then I definitely wouldn't get it if I were you.
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;" lang="EN-GB"]Why many people are shooting with a normal FF zoom. Simply because not everybody wants ultra wide and 24-105mm is equivalent to 38-168mm on a crop sensor, which is a very useful range for some people (many point & shoot cameras start at 35/38mm). I'm not saying it's wrong to want a wide lens; it's just not the answer to everything.<o:p></o:p>
Is the constant aperture important to you? If you're shooting much in low-light conditions, the 24-105 might be better since it will autofocus faster/more accurately in low-light, due to it's wider aperture at the long end.
Thanks to all for the replies, actually i'm using my 70-300 and most of the times i don't need any wider focal, so i think that for me 24mm is enough (yet), i need a walkaround lens that allow me to get sharp images and that is reliable.
Are 300$ more a good investment for a L lens such the 24-105? Does the build quality, weather sealing, zoom/focus ring construction, IQ worth $300?
Last but not least EF lenses are compatible with FF bodies.(I'm not considering to go FF yet but who knows!)
Thank you very much for the answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Yeah, in that case I think the 24-105 is an excellent choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj1575
It depends on the use. I've got the 24-105 on my 50D and I find the range perfect for vacation pics and outdoor family events.
For indoor events, it can be a little tight, so I just back up a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
For me, the money I spent on the 24-105 was worth it. Given the build quality, the useful range, and the outstanding IQ, I plan on keeping these lens for as long as it lasts. And I expect that to be a very long time, since I take good care of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuddyO
...which is fine, until your backing up backs you into a wall, and you still need wider framing. That's why I find the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ideal for most uses (the extra stop helps indoors, too!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
The 24-105/4 is a wonderful complement for the 7D. Cap off the front with a good filter to seal off the system. I no longer bother to bag the camera when coming in from the cold. The IQ, contrast and sharpness in particular, are in my opinion better than 17-55/2.8, but it does seem to depend which I looked at last. I own both. The 17-55 is my favorite for indoors and night scenes. The 24-105 is the walkaround lens the rest of time. I have a polarizer on it as often as not. I'm wondering now how much that influences my impression of color and contrast, not to mention the better light.
The zoom ring position is reversed compared to the 17-55 and somewhat smaller. I'm forever grabbing the focus ring by mistake the first few minutes on either when I switch. The 17-55 has a suitably big ring and easy to get your hand on when you want. The -105's, being in the rear, is already in hand by just cupping the camera body naturally and wrapping the thumb and finger around the lens.
The IS motor on the -105 is noticeably louder and clunkier sounding than the 17-55. IS on the 17-55 seems to be a bit more effective, maybe due to its shorter FL range, but more likely just due to the newer design.
I bought the 24-105 after being frustrated too often with the limited reach on the 17-55. The -105 is comfortably long, and I seldom bump its zoom limit.
The 15-85 IS got good ratings in its review here and is worth considering. Pairing it with a fast normal prime might be an answer. I didn't set out to own both the 17-55 and 24-105. I had wanted a no-compromise lens to pair with the 7D, and thought I could live with the jump from 55mm to 70mm. As it turned out, the -105 is a better match at any time I might want the 70-200, so much so that I haven't even mounted the -200 in quite some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWhy
A lot! If you can accept the loss of a couple of stops, which usually isn't a problem outdoors, a CPL will certainly enhance color and contrast significantly.