Which zoom to start with?

Hello - What a great site.
In the next couple of months I am going to get a 7D and wanting to put L lenses on it.
The two lenses I think I want are the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and the Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens.
The only problem is I am only going to be able to swing one or the other at this time. I am wanting to photograph the boys in their sports, band etc. along with the "normal" family outings etc.
Which do you feel would be better to start with? And are these the lenses I should be looking at?
Pretty new to this but can't wait to dive in.
Thanks for your time.

The 24-70 is not a wide angle lens on the crop sensor 7D. I would recommend getting a lens such as the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS (with image stabilization). This will give you the wide angle you are looking for, with a large maximum aperture for shallow DOF and it has image stabilization which really helps with stationary subjects in low light. This lens is also substantially more affordable than the canon at around $600 and is pretty sharp aswell. This would give you a cheaper option to start with so you can eventually collect the funds needed for the 70-200 f2.8L IS which is an amazing lens.

So you would go with a smaller lens first rather than the 70 - 200?

Shorthairs wrote in post #13695321
So you would go with a smaller lens first rather than the 70 - 200?

If you want to shoot "the boys in their sports, band etc.", you're probably going to want a longer lens. If you can afford both a 24-70 and a 70-200, go that way. I did, and I included the 16-35 as well, all for my 20D (long before the faster EF-S lenses such as the EF-s 17-55 were invented).

My suggestion is to - for the time being - forget "L" series lenses and get something in the 18-55 range and the EF-S 55-250 for starters. When you get good enough to be running into the limitations of these lenses, THEN you can progress to the "L" family of lenses because you will then understand what you really need/want.

24mm is not side on crop.

24-70
x 1.6
38-112 in FF

18-200 EF-S might be a better starter for your needs? Sports events outdoors or fairly well lit gyms? Family outings are mostly in closed spaces? These might be some issues with the 18-200 unless they're mostly outdoors.

I have the 24-70 on a 7D but i shoot mostly people within those range, i pull out the 70-200 when i'm restricted with barriers at sporting events but i'm usually framing my subjects as i would with a 24-70.

you might want to think about how much weight you'll be carrying around. both of the lenses you mentioned are pretty heavy.

18-200 is a non-USM lens, and as such.. likely wouldn't focus fast enough for most sports.

I've got to agree with Skip on this one. For your needs these lenses are a good balance between cost, performance and weight.

auto-clicker wrote in post #13695461
24-70
x 1.6
38-112 in FF

What is that supposed to mean to a person just getting into his/her first camera? It does nothing more than throw a handful of confusion into the stew pot.

SkipD wrote in post #13695912
What is that supposed to mean to a person just getting into his/her first camera? It does nothing more than throw a handful of confusion into the stew pot.

Do you really think this beginner should get that glass if he can't comprehend simple sensor math?

Scoro wrote in post #13696002
Do you really think this beginner should get that glass if he can't comprehend simple sensor math?

What difference does that make if the newbie is only getting a single camera and lenses that work for him/her on it?

If the sports shooting is outside, I agree on the 55-250 f/4-5.6 - it has received a lot of good comments (there's a thread here showing example pics).

If the shooting is inside, you'll need an f/2.8 or better to get enough light. Whether you need the 70-200 f2.8 or some smaller focal length depends upon how far away you are going to be shooting.

The nice thing about the 55-250 is that, besides being good for outdoors, it is the cheapest way to experiment with focal lengths. I use f/1.8 primes (non-zooms) because almost all my shooting is inside (HS basketball)... but I couldn't resist the value of buying a 55-250.

I would get a 24-105mm lens if I could have only one lens and it pairs great with a 70-200mm lens. Mine is the widest lens ever owned and I have NEVER needed anything wider! It does have a wider field of view than the 50mm lens that was the standard kit lens when I purchased my 35mm SLR camera and used for over 30 years.

The suggestion to get an 18-200mm superzoom is not a bad idea. It will be good for photographing the activities you listed if they are daytime or inside where you can use a flash. I have trouble at kids night events even with an f/2.8 lens. Local schools and parks don't have nearly enough light for any kind of action shots at night. Ignore the derogatory comments of the pixel peepers. The 18-200mm lens is very good for the practical use of many people. I bought one for my nephew to use on his XSi, it has not been off his camera.

Leave enough in your budget for an E-TTL flash that will tilt and swivel regardless of which lens(es) you get.

Some suggestion and won't break the bank:

For general walkaround zoom:
Tamon 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC

For sports:
70-200 f/4 IS (people may said IS is uselsss when shooting moving objects in sports, but keep in mind, you can always turn it off. But having the IS is good when you use the same lens for portraits.)

I will get a fast prime and a speedlight to go with the above two lens as well.