s2kennyc wrote in post #9155257
But the 17-55 has IS and I would bet the picture quality between the two is a toss up. I've owned both at one time and I would recommend the 17-55 2.8 for a 7D, and a 24-70 for a 5D.
Same here, 17-55 and 24-105 at the same time. There's no way I would sacrifice the wide end on the 17-55 for the "L" as a walk around lens. Especially in this comparison, there's almost no quality difference.
S30L28 wrote in post #9155264
+1 on the 24-70.
I have both and it's the main lens on my 5D.
Keyword: It's on your 5D.
K6AZ wrote in post #9155317
It's all in what you're used to I suppose. I don't find IS particularly useful with standard zooms. I learned the hard way before IS and even digital was available to the consumer market.
What is IS good for then? Your comment is quite bias in my opinion. IS can be useful in a lot of scenario depends on what you shoot (ie. Longer shutter for water fall, handheld low light portrait shots, to compensate hand shakes - to name a few). It's here when you need.
Why go for something that's not made for the crop body, when there's a better lens that's being made with more features?
Remember, 7D has 18MP to crop if you need "more reach" (15mm). However, there's no way you can crop a picture to fit more stuff in. Well, you can, by taking multiple shots and stitch them together but thats not always fun or as easy as cropping.
My opinion still stay - Go with 17-55 F2.8IS if you are on a crop, 24-105L or 24-70L if you are on full frame.