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

[Scott Stephen]

It really depends on your budget. If you buy a 7D and keep if for 5 years, great. If you buy a 7D and keep if for a year, then sell it and buy a 5DIII, maybe not so great. It's a bit different with good lenses, they hold value well (and sometimes gain value over time). Bodies lose value...fast. A used 7D can be had for $1K or less these days.

Yes. Conventional wisdom is to spend the money on glass, not on the body. A cheap lens cannot resolve what the expensive camera is trying to accomplish. A lens you don't own due to budget constraints cannot resolve anything.

And yes, bodies depreciate like a new car does. And worse, they become obsolete faster than they wear out unless you are a working-daily professional. Lenses hold value well, and they last much longer than a body. And if you buy a used lens, you can probably sell someday for what you paid for it, or even more.

[KJawa]

Thank you! I haven't bought any refurbished cameras before. If I decide go with 7d, please suggest what all to check for while buying a good refurbished body. In your opinion, which one of these is the best dealer of refurbished cameras in terms of quality and reliability - Canon, BHphotovideo, Adorama or any other??
Do refurbished cameras come with any kind of warranty?

Thanks!

[Kayaker72]

KJawa,

First off, welcome to the forums. I wanted to point out a quick difference between used and refurbished. Used cameras were, well, used. Then sold back to someone, who, if good (like Canon/Adorama/BH) inspected it, rated it and is reselling it. Refurbished cameras were sold and then returned. If there was a problem, it was likely repaired, then inspected. I've seen several people that prefer refurbished to new for the simple reason that they are basically new cameras/lenses (hardly any use) that have been inspected and corrected by trained professionals.

I'd look for the best deal you can get from Canon, Adorama or B&H. Unless someone has a specific experience, I have only heard good things about each.

[DavidEccleston]

As far as I know Adorama and B&H get their refurbs from Canon, so all three should be equally like-new. Adorama extends the warranty on a refurb from 90 days to a full year, so if the prices are about equal, I'd lean towards Adorama.

[PatrickH]

I am in the minority as well. I use a 60d with the 24-105, but I also own a Sigma 10-20 for those times I need something wider.

The primary reasons I opted for the 24-105 were the weather sealing and the 56-105 focal lengths. The sealing came in handy on a recent trip to the SW US during monsoon season, and I really like the added length for portraits. For me these benefits outweighed the 17-23 range and the extra stop. I think it's also easier right now to find a screaming deal on the 24-105, and once you factor in a Canon lens hood (supplied with the 24-105 but not with the 17-15) the gap is a bit wider than it appears at suggested retail.


That said, after going through my trip photos I notice a lot of my shots were at 24mm. At the time I didn't feel like I was missing much (I wasn't constantly swapping to the 10-20 etc.) but the numbers suggest that I was trying to go wider with my walkaround lens.

I'd make the same choice now, but again this also includes owning a lens in the 10 to something range.

Good luck.

[Kayaker72]

There is, of course, the excellent EFS 15-85 to consider here for a general walk around lens for cropped sensor cameras .

I never chimmed in on the lens selection. For general purpose lens on a crop sensor camera great options are the 17-55 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, and the EFS 15-85. I own and highly recommend the 15-85 for general purpose photography. But, I can absolutely see buying one of the f/2.8 lenses for the lower light capabilities and better DOF. My general rule of thumb would be, for most users, if you are taking photos of kids/families, especially around the house, the 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the best option. If you want the focal length range, are shooting outdoors a lot, then I would recommend the 15-85 and use the cost savings to pick up a flash.

The OP brought up the 24-105 as a general walk around lens on a cropped sensor. I've seen some great photos from this combination from several forum members, but, similar to PatrickH, they seem to be combining it with a UWA lens such as the EFS 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 or 8-16. So, great option if you buy it in combination. For me, I like the ability to shoot the 15-24 mm range without change out the lens.

Just remember, these are all great options. Pick what serves your purpose the best.

[KJawa]

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate your suggestions to help me make the choice. I have decided to buy the 7D (may be refurbished if I find a good deal).
However, reading all the suggestions about the lenses, my list of probable starter lenses for the 7D has now grown (previously I was just looking at 17-55mm and 24-105) as each one of these is very good in its own regard. I got a lot of useful information from all you guys but at the same time I got into more dilemma. Please help me decide to pick the best option out of these for a walk-around kit. I know all of these lenses are excellent in their zone. So, if you had to pick your first general-purpose lens, which one of these (or combination of two) will you choose? I think that will really help a lot making the decision.

1) EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
2) EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
3) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
4) EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
5) EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Thanks so much!
KJawa

[ahab1372]

Welcome Kjawa,

I would remove 1) and 5) from the list. They are not general purpose on a 7D.
1) is wide wide angle and would complement 4) if you chose that one.
5) 50mm might be ok as general purpose on a full frame if you willing to give up zoom, but I think will be too long on a 7D for general purpose.

4) is not wide enough for general purpose (at least for my taste), so you would have to complement it with 1). That means more $$


I personally would choose between 2) and 3). Both have excellent IQ and their advantages.
2) is wider and longer, and less expensive
3) has constant f/2.8, which means better low light and more background blur if that is desired. (lower number == larger max aperture)

I went with 2), 15-85mm, and bought a 50mm f/1.8 (for around $100) and later on a 85mm f/1.8 for low light and portraits.
If you shoot a lot indoors, you might want to combine low light capabilities with the versatility of a zoom and choose option 2,) the 17-55

It really depends on personal preferences. Rule of thumb is maybe: If mostly outdoors, pick the 15-85, if mostly indoors and low light, pick the 17-55.

Hope that helps.

[KJawa]

Thanks so much everyone for such insightful suggestions! I really appreciate your help. I have decided to go with Canon 7d + 17-55 mm lens.
Looking forward to such informative and interesting discussions in this awesome community!

Thanks again
KJawa

[Poik]

This has been a good thread to read. I have a 7D already and am looking at upgrading my general purpose lens for it. I currently have a Canon 10-22mm which I love for starscapes etc, but am having a hard time deciding between the 17-55 and the 24-105, both being about the limit of my budget for a general purpose lens. I need to sell my 28-135 because after using the 10-22, the image quality just doesn't compare. Let us know how you like the lens when you end up getting it.

Also if you buy your 7D online, make sure you are getting the USA model, as lots of places are selling whitebox import models that do not have the warranty. You can get they body only for under $1200 at many stores now.