Canon 24-105mm OR Canon 17-55mm: for my first DSLR

[nvitalephotography]

Im going to agree with everyone above. the 17-55 2.8 is the best option for the 7d. I just bought the 24-105 since I have made the switch to a 5dii for general photography. I can tell already that the 2.8 and IS together will be missed in low light situations. I will also agree that the focal length range of the 17-55 is much better for general photography than the 24-105 on a crop sensor like the 7D. If I were still using my crop body for general photography and indoor phototography I would never switch my 17-55 for a 24-105. With that said. I may be a bit biased because Im going to end this post with saying that my 17-55 2.8 is still for sale if you are interested in going the used route to save a few bucks.

[neuroanatomist]

Echo echo echo...


If you're set on the 7D, get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. For 'indoor and outdoor general purpose photography,' I think the 6D (or a 5DII if you're in a rush) with the 24-105mm f/4L IS is a better choice.

I have a 7D, and after getting the 5DII my 7D stayed pretty much glued to the 100-400mm for birds/wildlife. Something like ~85% of my shooting was with the 5DII.

I just bought the 24-105 since I have made the switch to a 5dii for general photography. I can tell already that the 2.8 and IS together will be missed in low light situations.

It's interesting...I hear many people make comments along the lines of, "I'd like to go FF, but I love my 17-55mm so much and there's no FF equivalent." Here's the thing - the crop factor applies to DoF for the same framing as well (because you have to be further back with an APS-C sensor and the same focal length), and a FF sensor delivers at least 1.3 stops better ISO performance. So, the real FF-equivalent of the 17-55mm is actually a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens - the 24-105mm on FF is actually wider, longer, and faster; the FF sensor gives you back more than the stop of light in reduced ISO noise, so if you need the faster shutter speed you'd get from f/2.8, you bump up the ISO on your FF camera one stop and you're still ahead. So, really, the only thing you lose from the 17-55mm is that the f/2.8 aperture activates the high precision center AF point found on most Canon bodies. From an IQ standpoint, the 24-105mm on FF is better than the 17-55mm on APS-C.

But, to be clear, if the debate is between the 17-55mm and 24-105mm for use on an APS-C body, I'd pick the 17-55mm for sure.

[nvitalephotography]

True, I often forget about the difference in ISO performance

[gkphoto]

I am probably in the minority here but I have the 7d I upgraded from a 30d and have the 24-105L, and the 17-40L. I personally find the 24-105 focal length far more useful than my 17-40 in most of my scenarios both inside and outside. It could be that my current main photo subject is small (2 year old daughter). The 2.8 would be great for sure, but if I want good low light performance I toss on my 50/1.4. I absolutely love my 24-105 don't have the 17-55 so I can't really comment on it's quality, but I here it is very good. There is nothing like the focusing from a L lens though in my opinion.