16-35mm 2.8L II, 24-70mm 2.8L, or 17-55mm IS USM for a Canon 7D as a daily?

been struggling with this decision for over a month, need some advice and experience please...I already read all the threads about these lens, but no clear "best fit" for my scenario

current setup:
- Canon 7D
- Canon 70-200mm F4 L
- Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (SOLD)

What I shoot:
- mostly family outings
- Car shoots
- indoor/low light conditions (graduation ceremonies, parties, etc)

why I sold the Tamron 17-50mm:
- excellent lens, good IQ, but I have really really bad handshaking which in low light or low shutter speeds, it just doesn't work! even in high ISO's like 1600 or 3200, I'm getting just aweful pics, and wanted IS to help me.

- Need a lens that will be my daily carry on the 7D. Most of the time I don't carry my other lenses unless I know it is a dedicated shoot (for a car, etc), so I need a good lens that has good IQ but versatile enough.

Which of these three would best fit my needs for a cropped sensor camera?
- I really don't plan on moving up to a 5D or any FF, as I dont shoot potraits and such, and the 7D is more than capable for my video and still shots needs.... so "Upgrade to FF" compatibility is not an issue.

- I was dead set on a 17-55mm IS USM, but used prices ($900-$975) are still steep and new prices ($1100) for an EF-S frame makes me weary! Additionally, I know this lens has great pics and IQ, but the dust issue concerns me as well.

- the 16-35mm f2.8 II seems like a great new lens from all the reviews and threads, but it may not be long enough for a cropped sensor. Any comments? also, how does it do in video?

- the 24-70mm 2.8 L seems like a great one too, but apparently build quality is not as good as the 16-35mm, and for a cropped sensor I have a feeling it may be too long. Any comments?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'binary/octet-stream'

where is everyone?

Patience Grasshopper. Some may need longer than 9 minutes to respond.

ssabripo wrote in post #12552057
where is everyone?

ssabripo wrote in post #12552010
been struggling with this decision for over a month, need some advice and experience please...I already read all the threads about these lens, but no clear "best fit" for my scenario

I've got the same basic question. Looking for a carry lens for my 40D that can be shared with the 5D2.

I'm leaning towards the 16-35 (and voted that way) but I'm worried that it may be a bit short for walkaround. The 17-40 doesn't add much reach, loses a stop but costs half as much...

I'll be watching this thread carefully.

I dont understand why people take the 16-35 over the 17-55 IS on a crop camera, doesnt make sense if your not gonna go ff.

Well I dont have a 7D I have a 40D and until I bought a 5Dc I used a combo of a 24/105 and a siggy 10/20,the 24/105 was not wide enough.
If it had been available when I bought the 24/105 I would have bought the 15/85.I tried the 17/55 2.8 and found it was not long enough.
As I understand it the 15/85 has 4 stop IS so that should help with your hand shaking.
From my standpoint its a toss up between the 17/55 and the 15/85,it depends if you need constant f2.8 or can live with variable aperture.
The dust problem on the 17/55 seems to be a bit overated and a good UV filter seems to cure any problems.
In terms of video I would not dream of commenting on the performance of any of them

Best of luck

Chris

On a crap frame, I wouldn't waste money on lenses designed for full frame cameras.

rklepper wrote in post #12552067
Patience Grasshopper. Some may need longer than 9 minutes to respond.

true, LOL!

tomme wrote in post #12552086
I dont understand why people take the 16-35 over the 17-55 IS on a crop camera, doesnt make sense if your not gonna go ff.

Most of the comments I heard on this is that the 16-35 is not long enough on a cropped sensor, and doesn't really shine unless you go FF. But many have said it is a great all around lens as well on cropped sensors, so I dont know...never used it.

troutfisher wrote in post #12552101
Well I dont have a 7D I have a 40D and until I bought a 5Dc I used a combo of a 24/105 and a siggy 10/20,the 24/105 was not wide enough.
If it had been available when I bought the 24/105 I would have bought the 15/85.I tried the 17/55 2.8 and found it was not long enough.
As I understand it the 15/85 has 4 stop IS so that should help with your hand shaking.
From my standpoint its a toss up between the 17/55 and the 15/85,it depends if you need constant f2.8 or can live with variable aperture.
The dust problem on the 17/55 seems to be a bit overated and a good UV filter seems to cure any problems.
In terms of video I would not dream of commenting on the performance of any of them

Best of luck

Chris

good information! I'll read on the 15-85mm

ssabripo wrote in post #12552010
why I sold the Tamron 17-50mm:
- excellent lens, good IQ, but I have really really bad handshaking which in low light or low shutter speeds, it just doesn't work! even in high ISO's like 1600 or 3200, I'm getting just aweful pics, and wanted IS to help me.

You already answer your own question. The only one on your list with IS is the EF-S 17-15 f/2.8 IS.

ahendarman wrote in post #12552133
You already answer your own question. The only one on your list with IS is the EF-S 17-15 f/2.8 IS.

correct, I was originally set on this.... BUT, after reading 100's of threads and articles, the ol "why spend $1000+ on an EF-S lens" and "dust...plus not an L lens" comments pop up in my mind

Not sure why you are looking at the two L's that you have listed as neither of these have IS either and that seems to be your main complaint about the Tamron. If you definetely want 2.8 why not the Sigma 17-50 OS? It is as sharp as the 17-55 is and quite a bit less money.

ssabripo wrote in post #12552139
correct, I was originally set on this.... BUT, after reading 100's of threads and articles, the ol "why spend $1000+ on an EF-S lens" and "dust...plus not an L lens" comments pop up in my mind

Sounds like you're listening to people who are too obsessed with whether or not Canon has blessed a lens with the "L" designation, and not paying attention to actual performance.

GregoryF wrote in post #12552146
Not sure why you are looking at the two L's that you have listed as neither of these have IS either and that seems to be your main complaint about the Tamron. If you definetely want 2.8 why not the Sigma 17-50 OS? It is as sharp as the 17-55 is and quite a bit less money.

the L's for their build and image quality, is what I was going for. After all the comments on using perhaps even higher ISO (I usually dont go past 1600, but some have said I can go with 6400 ISO on the 7D with no issues) or even a monopod in low lights, I had to go back to reconsider IS...not sure if it is the most critical requirement anymore

bior wrote in post #12552170
Sounds like you're listening to people who are too obsessed with whether or not Canon has blessed a lens with the "L" designation, and not paying attention to actual performance.

that's why I need you guys to keep me focused!

ssabripo wrote in post #12552171
the L's for their build and image quality, is what I was going for. After all the comments on using perhaps even higher ISO (I usually dont go past 1600, but some have said I can go with 6400 ISO on the 7D with no issues) or even a monopod in low lights, I had to go back to reconsider IS...not sure if it is the most critical requirement anymore

Personally, I went with the 24-105 L as the focal range is near perfect for me.