Primary lens for your 7D

[Trickster]

i am deciding between a 17-55 or a 17-40 or a 15-85. after reading this i am more confused :what:

All Good stuff... my choice... 17-55.

 

[longfung]

yap just got my 17-55

 

[fertt]

but wouldnt the 24-105mm be a more versatile choice? and its image quality is pretty excellent too. at a couple hundred dollars more, would it be worth getting since the wider range offers more versatility?

 

[commonjunks]

but wouldnt the 24-105mm be a more versatile choice? and its image quality is pretty excellent too. at a couple hundred dollars more, would it be worth getting since the wider range offers more versatility?

I will choose 17-55 over 24-105 because of 2.8. I want to use this lens all time on my body, basically for in door photography. But i think it all depend on ones' need.

 

[jdbatino]

but wouldnt the 24-105mm be a more versatile choice? and its image quality is pretty excellent too. at a couple hundred dollars more, would it be worth getting since the wider range offers more versatility?

Well, 24mm isn't wide on a crop body.
While it has more tele range, it's not wide enough. And its one stop slower.
Both disadvantages also mean that it sucks in low light compared to the 17-55.

7D has 18 megapixels, so you can make up for the lost tele end by cropping the image without losing a lot of IQ.

Heck if you don't care about lowlight shooting, might as well just get 15-85 USM IS which is getting good reviews for IQ.
You get wide and tele with great IQ (I havent used this lens so its just based on what others say).

Overall, 17-55 is more versatile. At least under normal conditions. If you need weather sealing in your shoots, L lenses will be your only choice.

 

[raymansg]

same same ... correct size, weight ... only slight complaint is that its not an L. With some of the L elements, it could have been once heck of a lens.;p

 

[pattanct]

in my opinion...7D is weathersealed. great for the outdoor, rugged and adventurous shooter. so for me, being outdoor-ish and constantly perspiring from all the trekking...i'd get the 17-40 for the build. at least i know it can tahan all the dust, perspire and knocks - and most importantly it feels great on the hands cuz its build is really excellent. i can't stand the zoom creep on 15-85 and the wobbly feel on the 17-55...

what so great with 17-40, no IS, at f4, poor bokeh, beside a red ring.

i would take 17-55 f2.8 IS anytime, unless i changed to FF, and will still give 17-40 a miss, rather a sigma 24-70f2.8 on FF

for the red ring, a nice red rubber can do the job. ;p

 

[lightning]

24mm Mk2L

 

[LightsOn]

Don't have to think too much. Just go for 17-55mm with 7D like what I did. No regrets. Btw, i also got the 100mm HIS 2.8L to pair up with 7D. The sharpness is superb!

 

[clubgrit]

Just sold my 500D KitII and eagerly awaiting the arrival of 7D. Would like to know for those who has DECIDED to change to 7D, what would be the primary lens on your 7D (on your camera most of the time). For the naysayers of 7D, kindly refrain from posting unconstructive comments Thanks

You should know by now what focal length you prefer to use most of the time ... only you can say what lens will be primary on your 7D.

While many here recommend the excellent 17-55mm, it is a focal length range I am not fond of with a big dslr. Anyway, my primary lens of preference is the 135mm f/2 for AF, and the Zeiss C/Y 85mm f/1.4 for MF (with KatzEye screen). That's just me, probably the only one here ...


.

 

[dolina]

500mm then 800mm

 

[Ching]

Currently I am owning Canon 10-22mm and Sigma 30mm f1.4 (sold my Sigma 18-200mm recently).

Thinking that adding on with Canon 24-105mm and Canon 70-200mm f4L IS would be nice combi to cover all range :bsmilie:

But seeing that most are recommending Canon 17-55, tat's pretty tempting... just that this lens would be overlapping with Canon 10-22mm...

 

[Eijnaix]

but wouldnt the 24-105mm be a more versatile choice? and its image quality is pretty excellent too. at a couple hundred dollars more, would it be worth getting since the wider range offers more versatility?

I'm one clown who sold my 24-105 mm to get 15-85mm... U can say I'm crazy. But 24-105 on 1.6 crop means 37-168mm... That seriously doesn't sound very general purpose to me at all

But I'm proud to have done the right thing for my 7D even though it took me quite a while ... Lol

 

[terrylam77]

Just wanted to know is 17-55mm come with hood?? or need to buy separately:embrass:??

 

[jasonteoch]

Just wanted to know is 17-55mm come with hood?? or need to buy separately:embrass:??

17-55mm does not comes with hood....

 

[Saracen]

Just got a 15-85mm after having owned both the 17-85 and 18-200. Very impressed – very sharp, and not too heavy. I'd go for that. Various people online comparing its sharpness to the 17-40L.

 

[Spaniard]

24mm Mk2L

:thumbsup:

 

[terence19]

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 USM

 

[pentaxme]

Agreed with Saracen.

I have all these four lenses 15-85, 18-200, 17-55 and 17-40, and used to own 17-85 (sold it). I think 15-85 is the most ideal walkabout lens (24-136 comparing to full frame 24-105L). Very compact well build, well balance and good weight, excellent IQ, except f3.5 to f5.6, it would be nice if it is f4 constant.

17-55 and 17-40L are really very nice lenses too but the reach maybe a little limited for general holiday I feel (again it is personal style and preference). Actually, 17-40L go very well with 5D for the excellent wide angle coverage, can give a very nice wide angle and really sharp edge to edge sharp image. It is a little limited coverage for crop body of all the lens above.

Choice of lenses are very subjective and personal, my friend prefer 18-200 over 15-85 for the wide coverage and willing to compromise a little on the IQ, another prefer 17-40L over 17-55 for his crop. The magnetism of "L' is little too strong to resist

Actually, my favourite is prime 35 f1.4L on a crop body but that is not what the TS question here.

Just got a 15-85mm after having owned both the 17-85 and 18-200. Very impressed – very sharp, and not too heavy. I'd go for that. Various people online comparing its sharpness to the 17-40L.

 

[muvouser]

no you are not clown. 24-105l is not a spectacular and over rated lens anyway.

I'm one clown who sold my 24-105 mm to get 15-85mm... U can say I'm crazy. But 24-105 on 1.6 crop means 37-168mm... That seriously doesn't sound very general purpose to me at all

But I'm proud to have done the right thing for my 7D even though it took me quite a while ... Lol