Next Lens....

[MikeG2012]

Hey everyone,


So I'm looking at picking up a new lens for my 7D. I currently own the discontinued 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. I'm looking to pick up a better wide angle lens, since I'm constantly comparing quality of the 24-85 images to the 70-200 and 100-400 and always coming out disappointed.


Recently I've taken up a lot of model and portrait shoots, as well as indoor event photography, some of those events without the availability of flash. So I feel the slow aperture, and poor IQ of the 24-85 is really holding me back. I've heard great things about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and I've also considered the 24-70 f/2.8. I know the 24-70 is heavier, more expensive and lacks IS, but it has the better build quality and weather sealing. I do some nature photography along with the indoor stuff, which is why I need a good wide angle lens that will offer the IQ I want, while still helping me to work well in just about any shooting environment.


So my question is if the 17-55 the best choice and compromise? Or should I go with the 24-70 so I'm safe to shoot anywhere and just bump up my ISO a stop or 2 to get the required shots?





Thanks,


Mike

[Daniel Browning]

On the 7D, the 24-70 isn

[Trowski]

The 17-55mm is definitely a winner in terms of image quality, matching that of L lenses, but has build quality similar to the 24-85mm you have. The 24-70mm is what I use on the 7D for indoor sports (usually with flash, since even f/2.8 doesn't cut it sometimes for sports). I bought the 24-70mm and sold my 17-55mm for three reasons: 1) I bought a 5DII, so I wanted a lens that could be used on both; 2) The extra 15mm on the long end helps a lot with indoor sports; and 3) the weather sealing to avoid dust and those times when I end up shooting in less than optimal conditions. For event photography, I'm guessing the 17-55mm's IS wouldn't help you much. However for those times when you are photographing a stationary subject, the IS on the 17-55mm makes it incredibly hand-holdable. I used to take sharp photos with that lens with shutter speeds as slow as 1/4 sec.


Seeing as you've been using a 24-85mm lens already, have you felt that it wasn't wide enough for what you wanted to shoot? As Daniel said, the 24-70mm isn't very wide on the 7D, so take that into consideration as well.


I had issues with dust getting in my 17-55mm, so much so that I actually figured out how to take the front element off and blow the dust out. I've never had any dust issues with any of my weather-sealed L lenses, and I shoot often with them outdoors. That being said, the dust never really negatively affected any of my photos, I'm just too OCD about my equipment I guess...

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Mike,


I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. As Daniel says, 24mm isn't that wide on a 7D. You'd notice the difference between your current 28mm and the 24mm of the 24-70, but there's a big difference in angle of view between 24mm and 17mm on a crop body - 24mm on 1.6x is equivalent to ~38mm on FF, which pushes into the 'normal' field of view, i.e. not wide angle. If you're looking for,"...a good wide angle lens that will offer the IQ I want, while still helping me to work well in just about any shooting environment," as long as that environment doesn't include rain the 17-55mm is the way to go, IMO. The IS system will enable you to get away without a tripod for some shots (at least, you'll be able to increase your DoF by decreasing the aperture ~3 stops while still handholding for landscapes).


Fundamentally, it comes down to what focal length you want/need. If you want to get significantly wider than your current lens, a 24-xx is not going to do that for you. Question on your current 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 lens - that's a discontinued lens, so certainly it didn't come with your 7D! Did you have it from days you shot with a film SLR? I ask because the 17-55mm will give almost exactly the focal range of a 28-85mm on FF (the 17-55mm is 27-88mm FF-equivalent angle of view).


Unlike Trowski, I've not had any dust issues with the 17-55mm. One reason may be that I keep a B+W MRC UV filter on it at all times (as I do on all my lenses - even most 'weather-sealed' L lenses require a filter to complete the seal).

So my question is if the 17-55 the best choice and compromise? Or should I go with the 24-70 so I'm safe to shoot anywhere and just bump up my ISO a stop or 2 to get the required shots?

Personally, I think the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. The EF-S 15-85mm also has good IQ but the slow aperture is limiting (even more so than your 28-85mm). I'm not a fan of bumping the ISO on my 7D, because I don't think it does that well for noise above ISO 800 (though that's a personal preference, obviously). If you want a crop body wide angle zoom that has weather sealing, your only options are the 17-40mm f/4L or the 16-35mm f/2.8L - both have good IQ (although the 17-55mm is better), but one is f/4 and both are short on the long end (56mm/64mm FF-equivalent), so you lose the short tele end of the zoom range, making them less useful as general purpose zooms.


When I recently added a 5DII to my kit, I knew that would be the go-to body for landscapes and portraits, and the 7D would primarily see use as a nature/bird camera paired with the 100-400mm. Still, even though I replaced my 10-22mm (1.6x UWA zoom) with a 16-35mm (FF UWA zoom) for the ultrawide end, I have kept my 17-55mm for times when I go out with the 7D. I'll hang onto the 17-55mm as long as I have a 1.6x body!


Good luck with your decision...


--John

[Chris White]

Hi Mike,


Add another vote for the EF-S 17-55mm.


I have both the 17-55 and the 24-70 and on my 50D, I am much happier with the 17-55 results. I have never had any dust issues, but like John, the first thing I do when I get an new lens is install a B&W UV filter. Even with AF Microadjust, I was never as happy with the results on my 50D with the 24-70. In addition, on the 1.6 crop format, I do not find the 24mm to be wide enough more often than I miss the extra length at 70mm.


Now, on my 5D II, the 24-70 is unbelievable. If you were asking for a full frame recommendation, I would enthusiastically recommend the 24-70. ( I realize the 17-55 is not an option on anything except a 1.6 crop body. )


If you get a 17-55 and a good UV filter for your 7D, I think you will be a very happy camper. Like John, as long as I have a 1.6 crop body in my kit, I will have a EF-S 17-55 as well. They make a great pair.


Chris

[MikeG2012]

Thanks for the quick responses!


Occasionally I have issues with my 24-85 not being wide enough. Usually its when I

[Sean Setters]

Even with a UV filter, it

[MattG]

I agree with Sean 110% - I could imagine not ahving the 17-55!


MattG

[Trowski]

Unlike Trowski, I've not had any dust issues with the 17-55mm. One reason may be that I keep a B+W MRC UV filter on it at all times (as I do on all my lenses - even most 'weather-sealed' L lenses require a filter to complete the seal).

<div>


I also keep a UV filter (actually a clear protection filter, same idea though) on my lenses at all times as well. I don't really like traveling with lens caps, just one more thing to fiddle with and potentially lose. If there was a way I could avoid the end caps and not stuffer the dusty sensor consequences I would! The dust problems I was experiencing with the 17-55mm might have come from frequent changes to a polarizing filter or ND filters when I was doing landscape shooting. Bryan mentioned in his review that he didn't experience dust issues with the copy he tested, so it might have also vary from copy to copy.Plus my lens was from 2007, from the research I've done it sounds like recent copies handle dust better.

Personally, I think the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body.

I full agree. I took 75% of my photos with this lens when I only owned a crop body, and was sad to part with it. I would have kept it, but it just wasn't going to get used since I was using the 5DII for most things non-sports and non-telephoto.

Sounds like the 17-55 is the way to go. My wallet will be happy!

Looks like you've already decided on the 17-55mm. It's a great lens, enjoy it!


Here's a hand-held photo I took with the lens, just to give you an idea of what IS can do for you with landscapes.


Shannon Falls, British Columbia


1/10 @ f/16 ISO 100



</div>

[bob williams]

Mike, with any lens decision, there will probably some level of compromise, especially if you need a single lens for multiple shooting situations. With that said, there is another option, but of course it too requires compromise. That is the 16-35L 2.8. It is a more expensive, not great for portraits and doesn