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.

Quote Originally Posted by nvitalephotography View Post
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.