Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 08 May 2016 (Sunday) 10:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Upgrade 17-55mm f2.8 with 24-70mm f4 IS for 7D mkII?

 
Rcouttolenc
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 08, 2016 10:23 |  #1

I have a dilemma with the set of lens for the Canon 7D mark II which I have been using to travel around the world paired with a 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. However there is always a gap between 55mm and 70mm which I need to fill as often times is the needed focal range. One day I might move to full frame (2 years) for what I need to plan ahead; nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

My options are:

24-70mm f/4 IS because is sharp, light and has IS.

24-70mm f.2.8 no doubt is better, but should I need 2.8 for travel and the extra cost and weight?

24-105mm f4 IS, which I hear not as good as the 2 above and nothing to win.

I know I will loose the wide from 17 to 24mm which I could just add the Canon 10-18mm which is small, cheap and well rated, or any other similar.

Any thoughts, recommendations or options? I do not do weddings or portraits, I just enjoy my retirement traveling and getting great pictures from the world.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
8,255 posts
Gallery: 372 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 15352
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited over 2 years ago by Archibald.
     
May 08, 2016 11:07 |  #2

Rcouttolenc wrote in post #17999785 (external link)
I have a dilemma with the set of lens for the Canon 7D mark II which I have been using to travel around the world paired with a 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. However there is always a gap between 55mm and 70mm which I need to fill as often times is the needed focal range. One day I might move to full frame (2 years) for what I need to plan ahead; nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

My options are:

24-70mm f/4 IS because is sharp, light and has IS.

24-70mm f.2.8 no doubt is better, but should I need 2.8 for travel and the extra cost and weight?

24-105mm f4 IS, which I hear not as good as the 2 above and nothing to win.

I know I will loose the wide from 17 to 24mm which I could just add the Canon 10-18mm which is small, cheap and well rated, or any other similar.

Any thoughts, recommendations or options? I do not do weddings or portraits, I just enjoy my retirement traveling and getting great pictures from the world.

Well, maybe you will "upgrade" to FF in a couple of years. Some people actually upgrade to a smaller format, like micro 4/3.

The best lenses for crop format are those designed for crop format. Actually the choices are not that rich. The best of the lot is probably the 18-55mm STM. It is also the cheapest.

There are currently a couple of threads on this topic here at POTN.

There is an attraction to L lenses. They are heavy and expensive, and confer some status in the world of photography. But the 24-xx ones lack wide angle on crop. For general travel-type shooting, most would want wide angle. Sure, you could get the 10-18, but that means more lens changes, and that is inconvenient. That's why general-purpose zooms for crop start at 17 or 18mm.

And re the "gap", for years I shot with a 18-55mm and the 100-400, and the gap between 55 and 100 rarely bothered me. It depends on your needs and preferences of course. To each their own.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,578 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2346
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
May 08, 2016 19:52 |  #3

No Brainer

17-55 all the way

I prefer it over the 24-70 on FF

24-70 F/4 wont give you enough width at times


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikepj
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Likes: 63
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
Post edited over 2 years ago by mikepj.
     
May 08, 2016 21:07 |  #4

I'd stick with the 17-55. It's an amazing lens, with a wide aperture and IS in a very useful focal length. None of the Canon 24-70 lenses have this combination of features.

I had the 17-55 and the 70-200 f4L for several years, and never really missed focal lengths in the gap. 55-70 is so small, that it's usually pretty easy to move a little closer and stay at 55mm, or move back a little bit if you are at 70. You wouldn't have to crop much at 55mm to get a 70mm equivalent photo.

I traded my 17-55 for a 24-105 when I upgraded to a full frame camera. My advice is to upgrade to full frame general purpose lens when you buy a full frame camera. The lens options could be entirely different by then, and you already have the best general purpose zoom for APS-C DSLRs.

If you must upgrade, I only have experience with the 24-105. It's not as sharp as the 17-55, but the photos it produces do have a nice look to them. The benefit I've seen by using it on my 7D2 is that it gives a really large zoom range. It's not as wide as I would like, but it zooms out to a 168mm equivalent on FF. That's pretty useful.

I've heard great things about the 24-70 f4L IS. Sharp, a quasi-macro mode, and IS. You're still giving up a stop of light from the 17-55 though, and I imagine the sharpness is similar between the two.

The 24-70 f2.8 L II (I'm assuming you are talking about v2 here) is a sweet lens. However, you're paying for it with the price and weight. Sharpness is similar compared to your 17-55 (with maybe a slight edge to the 24-70 f2.8), and you are still losing IS.

I just don't see the benefit to buying one of the L lenses at this point.


Radiant Photography (external link) Instagram (external link) Instagram (Sports) (external link) Flickr (external link)
5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, Rebel SL1
16-35 ƒ4L, 24-105 ƒ4L, 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II, 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6L, 85 ƒ1.8, 50 ƒ1.8 STM, 24mm ƒ2.8 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,404 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1453
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
May 08, 2016 21:34 |  #5

or look into the later model of Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS? Shouldn't break the bank and covers your range without having to juggle 3 lenses.
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …m-f28-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-c (external link)


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,914 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 479
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by RDKirk.
     
May 08, 2016 22:26 |  #6

mikepj wrote in post #18000464 (external link)
I'd stick with the 17-55. It's an amazing lens, with a wide aperture and IS in a very useful focal length. None of the Canon 24-70 lenses have this combination of features.

I had the 17-55 and the 70-200 f4L for several years, and never really missed focal lengths in the gap. 55-70 is so small, that it's usually pretty easy to move a little closer and stay at 55mm, or move back a little bit if you are at 70. You wouldn't have to crop much at 55mm to get a 70mm equivalent photo.

I traded my 17-55 for a 24-105 when I upgraded to a full frame camera. My advice is to upgrade to full frame general purpose lens when you buy a full frame camera. The lens options could be entirely different by then, and you already have the best general purpose zoom for APS-C DSLRs.

If you must upgrade, I only have experience with the 24-105. It's not as sharp as the 17-55, but the photos it produces do have a nice look to them. The benefit I've seen by using it on my 7D2 is that it gives a really large zoom range. It's not as wide as I would like, but it zooms out to a 168mm equivalent on FF. That's pretty useful.

I've heard great things about the 24-70 f4L IS. Sharp, a quasi-macro mode, and IS. You're still giving up a stop of light from the 17-55 though, and I imagine the sharpness is similar between the two.

The 24-70 f2.8 L II (I'm assuming you are talking about v2 here) is a sweet lens. However, you're paying for it with the price and weight. Sharpness is similar compared to your 17-55 (with maybe a slight edge to the 24-70 f2.8), and you are still losing IS.

I just don't see the benefit to buying one of the L lenses at this point.

I agree with all of this. I don't think the 24-70 offers anything over the 17-55 for APS-C format. In fact, it loses quite a bit in the loss of either IS or that extra stop, depending on which 24070 you get. The 17-55 fills the role for APS-C that the 24-70 fills for 24x36mm. Frankly, nobody shooting Canon APS-C should be without the 17-55, if they're willing to spend L money.

As you suggest, 70mm doesn't really offer enough more than 55mm to justify an additional lens just for that. I've found that the 24-100 gets me out as far as I'm needing to go in my work, but if I go longer, I've owned and loved the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. For APS-C format, thought, I consider that lens rather long enough to call "specialized."

On the short end, I'm really fond of the cheap 10-18 IS zoom. It's the only lens that goes that short and yet still has IS (valuable for video).

Edit: I really wish there was an f/2.8 50-150 IS lens available for APS-C format.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,287 posts
Likes: 127
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
May 09, 2016 22:30 |  #7

The 17-55 is brilliant - as long as you don't need that extra "reach" on the long end. :-D I shoot so many sporting events with my 7D2 that I tend to use the 24-105 almost all the time. Great IS, longer telephoto range, and the thing autofocuses like a guided missile. Don't assume that because many people don't like the lens, it's inferior. I'm totally happy with mine - but I'm not about to get rid of the 17-55 either, because sometimes I do need that wider aperture and/or greater FOV.

FWIW, I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and while it's a great lens too, I probably wouldn't have bought it had I gotten the 24-105 first. Maybe try renting the ones you're interested in first? All the recommendations in the world won't tell you what works for you on a shoot.


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,147 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Likes: 229
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
May 10, 2016 08:26 |  #8

Rcouttolenc wrote in post #17999785 (external link)
However there is always a gap between 55mm and 70mm which I need to fill as often times is the needed focal range.

What are you shooting where this small focal length gap is "often" required? I shot crop bodies for many years using a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 IS lens, and cannot think of any instances where this small gap was an issue. Going from 17mm to 24mm on the wide end would have been a much bigger issue for me.

However, if it really is a significant issue for you, I would suggest looking at either the Sigma 17-70, Canon EF-S 15-85mm or Canon EF-S 18-135mm STM. All of these lenses will fill that gap without giving up the wide end of your focal range. Yes, you could add a EF-S 10-18mm, but if you shoot a lot in the 17-24mm range, that will mean a lot of lens swapping between the 10-18mm and a 24-xx lens.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
anitaw2
Senior Member
Avatar
308 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 171
Joined Jun 2015
Location: Canada
     
May 10, 2016 08:54 as a reply to  @ Snydremark's post |  #9

I have this lens and it is SHARP. I love it


Anita W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 2 years ago by FEChariot.
     
May 10, 2016 15:58 |  #10

Scott M wrote in post #18002147 (external link)
What are you shooting where this small focal length gap is "often" required? I shot crop bodies for many years using a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 IS lens, and cannot think of any instances where this small gap was an issue. Going from 17mm to 24mm on the wide end would have been a much bigger issue for me.

If you like the classic 85mm to 135mm look for portraits on full frame, then the 55-70mm (88-112 equivalent) gap represents a good chunk of that portrait range. Even more of a pain is having to change lenses from one to the other in the middle of a portrait session. Of course the 24-70 doesn't help that either as you would still have to swap lenses if you wanted an equivalent 85mm shot followed by a 135mm equivalent one. The older Tokina 50-135, and Sigma 50-150 and newer Sigma 50-100 at least try to give you a one portrait lens option and try to do what a 70-200/2.8 II can do on FF.

I just don't see replacing a 17-55 for a 24-70/4. You don't gain enough length and you loose a stop.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,839 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 442
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 2 years ago by mwsilver.
     
May 11, 2016 18:58 |  #11

Rcouttolenc wrote in post #17999785 (external link)
I have a dilemma with the set of lens for the Canon 7D mark II which I have been using to travel around the world paired with a 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. However there is always a gap between 55mm and 70mm which I need to fill as often times is the needed focal range. One day I might move to full frame (2 years) for what I need to plan ahead; nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

My options are:

24-70mm f/4 IS because is sharp, light and has IS.

24-70mm f.2.8 no doubt is better, but should I need 2.8 for travel and the extra cost and weight?

24-105mm f4 IS, which I hear not as good as the 2 above and nothing to win.

I know I will loose the wide from 17 to 24mm which I could just add the Canon 10-18mm which is small, cheap and well rated, or any other similar.

Any thoughts, recommendations or options? I do not do weddings or portraits, I just enjoy my retirement traveling and getting great pictures from the world.

Does that small 13 mm gap ( 56-69mm) really create such issues? I personally don't see it as a big deal, but I'm not you. Carrying a small light 10-18 mm would not restore the wide end from 19-24m which in my book would be a much more significant deficit than not having 56-69 mm. To be honest I think you just want to treat yourself to an L lens. So if that's what you want, you don't need our permission just do it :)


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
May 11, 2016 20:09 |  #12

24-70 offers no advantages over a 17-55 on an EF-S camera. The difference in focal lengths between 55-70 can easily be covered by simply cropping. The 10-18 is a lens you should add, because it is small, cheap, and extremely useful. The other STM 18-55, 18-135, and 55-250 are all unprecedented lenses in terms of the IQ for the price.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
8,255 posts
Gallery: 372 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 15352
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
May 12, 2016 00:00 |  #13

mwsilver wrote in post #18004002 (external link)
To be honest I think you just want to treat yourself to an L lens. So if that's what you want, you don't need our permission just do it :)

This is probably the core of the issue.

OP seems to have left the premises, though...


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rcouttolenc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 18, 2016 19:31 |  #14

Thanks to everybody, you have been very instructive and helpful, I have just returned from NY where I shoot over 2,000 photos with my 17-55mm and the 70-200 f/4, they are great. I visited B&H and did not change my lens as your recommendations. I just bought a 1.4X extender which worked well from One World building. Also purchased the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 still need to test it well. Cheers to all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,059 posts
Likes: 181
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
May 20, 2016 09:02 |  #15

Good move. When you do go to full frame, there is no reason you Must unload your 7D Mark II. As a matter of fact I suggest you keep it. Having a full frame like a 5D Mark III and a 7D allows you to keep more tools in the box. Both Bodies compliment each other well in AF and button layout which is key. I still have a pair of 7D's and my EF-S 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8 L IS. I wish I had the 7D Mark II that you are fortunate to have.
When you do go to full frame, the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II, 24-70 f/4 L IS and 24-105 f/4 L IS are yours for the picking.
One of the problems of moving to a full frame body is that Canon, as of yet, does not give us the ideal option you have in the 17-55 f/2.8 IS...............a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS...............
Years back I purchased a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 24-105 f/4 L IS while on the 40d and 7D. Paired with a 70-200 f/4 L IS and the f/2.8 L IS Mark Ii, I had options. However having the wider f/2.8 option with IS usually was the pairing.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,222 views & 4 likes for this thread
Upgrade 17-55mm f2.8 with 24-70mm f4 IS for 7D mkII?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jawatts
982 guests, 256 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.