Confused... What lens is best for me???

RobDickinson wrote in post #13727837
This. I have a 7D.

24-70f2.8l has better bokeh and build, weighs a ton, no IS and IMO the wrong focal range.

25-105l is f4 and 'slow' for a crop, works great as a walkround on a FF body tho.

17-55 is all round orsome (tho does suck in some dust and can zoom creep). The Sigma 17-50f2.8OS is almost as good for a fair bit less money tho.

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS :

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5868490​186/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

The Glory of Arrowtown ~Explored~ by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5779616​409/
Beautiful to a fault by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5753604​303/
The Commuter by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6688840​769/
Mt Pleasant View by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5935932​113/
Sumner Night 4 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6004341​681/
Misty Hagley Park sunrise 3 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

Wow!! those 17-55mm pictures are so nice!
What were the settings and filters used?

Preeb wrote in post #13729352
Another vote for the 17-55. You won't miss the gap from 55mm to 70mm where you're 70-200 takes over. The speed and IQ can't be beat.

+1

I debated heavily between the 24-70 and 24-105, then heavily between the 24-105 and 17-55. I finally decided on the 17-55 basically because I like the benefits of 2.8 and IS but really because I felt like I needed something wider than 24mm and couldn't justify a 10-22 as it was a little too specialized than the general purpose needs I was looking for. I waned something that was semi-fast but could cover as an 'only lens' walk around if I was trying to travel light and this fits my needs perfectly. I don't miss the gap between 55-70 in the least bit personally.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #13729405
Wow!! those 17-55mm pictures are so nice!

Exactly what I was going to post. These are awesome pictures and examples!

RobDickinson wrote in post #13727837
This. I have a 7D.

24-70f2.8l has better bokeh and build, weighs a ton, no IS and IMO the wrong focal range.

25-105l is f4 and 'slow' for a crop, works great as a walkround on a FF body tho.

17-55 is all round orsome (tho does suck in some dust and can zoom creep). The Sigma 17-50f2.8OS is almost as good for a fair bit less money tho.

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS :

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5868490​186/
The Glory of Arrowtown ~Explored~ by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5779616​409/
Beautiful to a fault by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5753604​303/
The Commuter by robjdickinson, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6688840​769/
Mt Pleasant View by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/5935932​113/
Sumner Night 4 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/6004341​681/
Misty Hagley Park sunrise 3 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

Nice work which says more about your skill and eye than the lens you happened to use.

Valid point nonetheless.

Just to be different I'll suggest that the OP have a look at the Sigma 17-70 OS as well. Variable zoom 2.8 to 4 is a negative for many, but I found that I much prefer this lens over the 17-50/2.8 Tamron non VC that it replaced. And I was a fan of the Tamron.

The 17-70 delivers versatility + very good IQ (however not on par with 17-55 Canon or 17-50 Sigma I imagine). The extra length is nice. OS works well. Also provides some modest macro capability.

KenjiS wrote in post #13729118
Even Dickinson's awesome photos up there were shot at apertures either the 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8 are capable of...and even IS is kinda a moot consideration since most of his examples (Especially the night ones) are likely done from a tripod

About 50/50 for tripod work I think. I do shoot at f2.8 a fair bit with the 17-55, I find it works quite well even for landscapes, but more often for portraits and 'arty' shots when I dont have some other better suited lens to hand (which is frequently as the 17-55 can do so much). Also works well with flash indoors at 2.8 allowing more ambient light and lower iso.

arctic98z wrote in post #13729433
Exactly what I was going to post. These are awesome pictures and examples!

Thanks!

S.Horton wrote in post #13729436
Nice work which says more about your skill and eye than the lens you happened to use.

Thanks, to be honest with that set I could have shot them with the kit lens, they would look a bit poorer printed large ( I have 1.5m prints of some of them) but websize you wouldnt tell.

If the Brick is heavy for you, how come 17-55 2.8 IS isn't?
It just another Brick, but for EF-S mount.
If you don't mind it is same size as 500d or slightly bigger - best choice for you to replace kit lens.

645g vs 950g or near 50% more. I wouldnt mind the weight too muchbut its (for me) the wrong focal range on crop.

kf095 wrote in post #13729794
If the Brick is heavy for you, how come 17-55 2.8 IS isn't?
It just another Brick, but for EF-S mount.
If you don't mind it is same size as 500d or slightly bigger - best choice for you to replace kit lens.

In order:
The 17-55 is 645g / 22.8 oz 110.6mm x 83.5mm / 4.4 in. x 3.3 in.
The 24-105 is 670g / 23.6 oz 123.5mm x 83.2mm / 4.9 in. x 3.3 in.
The 24-70 is 950g / 33.5 oz 107mm x 83mm / 4.2 in. x 3.3 in.

arctic98z wrote in post #13729426
+1

I debated heavily between the 24-70 and 24-105, then heavily between the 24-105 and 17-55. I finally decided on the 17-55 basically because I like the benefits of 2.8 and IS but really because I felt like I needed something wider than 24mm and couldn't justify a 10-22 as it was a little too specialized than the general purpose needs I was looking for. I waned something that was semi-fast but could cover as an 'only lens' walk around if I was trying to travel light and this fits my needs perfectly. I don't miss the gap between 55-70 in the least bit personally.

Exactly what he said!

one more vote for 17-55.

S.Horton wrote in post #13729436
Nice work which says more about your skill and eye than the lens you happened to use.

Valid point nonetheless.

Great point. Those are wonderful photos, but I don't think it is fair to simply say "Here is what the 17-55 will deliver". I'm highly doubtful that I'd get close to them with any lens, as skill behind the camera and the computer surely matters a lot.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13727837
This. I have a 7D.

24-70f2.8l has better bokeh and build, weighs a ton, no IS and IMO the wrong focal range.

25-105l is f4 and 'slow' for a crop, works great as a walkround on a FF body tho.

17-55 is all round orsome (tho does suck in some dust and can zoom creep). The Sigma 17-50f2.8OS is almost as good for a fair bit less money tho.

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS :

Rob, I have a feeling you could make any lens and camera combo sing. Some pretty good skills you have there!!

I would take a look at the sigma 17-50 OS

Just how bad are the dust problems with the 17-55?