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

[KJawa]

Hi everyone

Greetings to all! This is my first post in this forum. I am planning to buy my first DSLR and I have decided to go with Canon 7d. What's your opinion about buying a 7d at this point, considering the recent launch of 6d. Any other option that is worth considering (I would like to go with Canon)?

But I am not able to decide which starter lens to buy. I'll be doing both indoor and outdoor general purpose photography. I have the Canon EF 24-105mm and Canon EF-S 17-55 mm in mind. What do you think is the better option? Any other lens that might be a better option than these for my purpose?
Please give your suggestions to help me resolve this confusion.

Thanks!

[DavidEccleston]

I have a T1i a 7D, and recently purchased a used 1Ds mk 2. The image quality of the 8 year old 1Ds easily outshines the 7D. If you're expecting to shoot portraits, landscapes, and other non-fast motion things, I'd wait for the 6D.

If you're expecting to shoot wildlife, the crop sensor of the 7D can help save money vs. longer lenses.

If you're expecting to shoot fast-moving sports, you'll need to wait for reviews of the 6D to find out if it's AI Servo performance is track motion acceptably, and if it's burst rate is acceptably fast.

If you go with the 7D, I'd recommend the 17-55 over the 24-105 easily. It's a stop faster, and you WILL miss the 17-23mm range.

If you need the camera now, but really want the 6D, you can always buy a used or refurb rebel (or a cheap used 5D mk 1) to use while you wait.

[andnowimbroke]

Hi KJawa,
What kinda of spending limit are you starting with? A 6d plus the 24-105 would make a good starting place but is quite a bit more than the 7d plus the 17-55 route. Should you wait for the 7dII? Na. Holidays are coming up and you might want to get a good price on a used/refurbished 7d by holding a couple weeks, but I wouldn't wait for something that prolly won't show up in a store anytime soon.

[Dr Croubie]

17-55 goes wider and has the faster max-aperture, and is about the same price as the 24-105 (give or take 10%).
The only reason you should consider the 24-105 would be a) you really need weather sealing, or b) you really need the 55-105 length (and the 15-85 isn't fast enough), can't afford another tele-zoom, and don't need 17-23 (like if you've got a 10-22 as well).

Coupled with the 85/1.8 or 100/2.0, i'm calling the 17-55 the go.

[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.

[KJawa]

Hi KJawa,
What kinda of spending limit are you starting with? A 6d plus the 24-105 would make a good starting place but is quite a bit more than the 7d plus the 17-55 route. Should you wait for the 7dII? Na. Holidays are coming up and you might want to get a good price on a used/refurbished 7d by holding a couple weeks, but I wouldn't wait for something that prolly won't show up in a store anytime soon.

Thanks 'andnowimbroke' for the reply! Actually, at one point last month, I was thinking of getting the 5D Mark III over the 7D. I read terrific reviews about it online. I know its quite expensive with just the body priced around $3500. But then I thought, why not buy the best canon DSLR available today in the market as people like me (a beginner SLR user) probably wont replace their SLR OR buy another one anytime soon (may be after 5 yrs or so). So, I started convincing myself for the MKIII. However, again I debated that I am just a beginner right now for SLRs...so investing that much money at this moment probably is not a very good idea even if I can afford it somehow. So, I shifted my focus towards the 7D which I believe has very good features for the price that it is available for now ($1350 for the body at present and hopefully will have some good deals during the holiday season).

What do you guys think about this?

Thanks each one of you for giving such informative and useful suggestions. They are definitely going to help me with my decision!

[neuroanatomist]

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.