24-150mm V 24-70mm V 17-55mm for EOS 7D

Hello again,

was quite a long time since i wrote here somthing.

Anyway I´d hope to get your help again.

I am aware that there are already some threads about this decision, but my case is different.

First what i currently own and what is planned in near future: EOS 7D, Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM, Sigma 150mm 2.8
and Sigma 50mm 1.4 or something similar is planned
as well as Canon 28mm 1.8 or something like that.

Now I want to replace the Tamron for quality improvement in relation to image quality as well as mechanical quality.

What my favorites are:
Canon 17-55mm 2.8
Canon 24-70mm 2.8
Canon 24-105mm 4.0

Which one would be the best choice here?

stephan902 wrote in post #13782373
Hello again,

was quite a long time since i wrote here somthing.

Anyway I´d hope to get your help again.

I am aware that there are already some threads about this decision, but my case is different.

First what i currently own and what is planned in near future: EOS 7D, Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM, Sigma 150mm 2.8
and Sigma 50mm 1.4 or something similar is planned
as well as Canon 28mm 1.8 or something like that.

Now I want to replace the Tamron for quality improvement in relation to image quality as well as mechanical quality.

What my favorites are:
Canon 17-55mm 2.8
Canon 24-70mm 2.8
Canon 24-105mm 4.0

Which one would be the best choice here?

I own a 7D and have done some research on the 3 favorites you have listed and from what I've uncovered.

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 is the sharpest lens at all apertures you can get for the 7D. Since it is a ef-s only lens it is built especially for the 1.6x body.

Canon 24-105mm 4.0 is a sharp lens even wide open and is a lens many child photographers prefer and is a preferred carry around everywhere lens chosen by many photogs.


Canon 24-70mm 2.8 is a lens I've actually heard doesn't perform as well optically on the 7D due to the dated optical design. While being a stellar performer on the full frame bodies it's not as sharp when using a 1.6x body.

What your choice really boils down to is what/who do you like to shoot and when/where?
Then go with the apertures and focal lengths you need.

There is a problem with putting any zoom that start at 24mm onto the , that is the 1.6X which gives a starting effective focal lenght of 38mm which is not wide angle.
The 17-55mm is a brilliant lense: not only has it f2.8 aperture but IS too. I've just decided to upgrade my 17-40mm. It's a no brainer.

But another option would be to use the Tamron 28-75 in combination with the 24-105mm still lacking the wide angle which is a pitty.

My application of the lens will be people/portrait photography and using it as an standard lens.

I am not really sure if f4.0 is enough, but i´d fancy the built quality of the L lens with all its advantages.

Futhermore i will own a 28mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8. Do I need a 2.8 standard lens anyway?

The tamaron is excellant value for money and is f/2.8 .
The only draw back is the AF feels primitive compared to canon's USM.

Who needs IS with practice and pressing your body against something solid I was able to hold for 1/4 sec inside churchs on my last trip to Italy. Never mind good high ISO on the 7d.

I personaly think the Canon 24-105mm f/4 has too much distortion. (Though I have been spoilt since I use a Canon 24-70 F/2.8 on my 5d.)
I think it comes down to budget

Budget is not a matter. I could also buy the 24-70mm 2.8, but i want the best value for my money!

Tamron image quality is really quite good, but there are too many drawbacks:
- slow AF, often not focusing accurate with things being farer away
- bad built quality
- no image stabilisation

Like the above poster, Sod the 28-75, Focal range is garbage on a crop and the lens itself is very MEH, especially the AF...

The 24-105 and 24-70 are good lenses, But the focal ranges are again, fairly bleh on a cropper and overall not worth it...

You mentioned you're buying the 28mm f/1.8 - 50mm f/1.4 - 85mm f/1.8 trio, So my question is, Why do you WANT a zoom? Or even more, Why do you want or need an f/2.8 zoom? (Which you even asked)

When you need speed/isolation, Slap one of the primes on there, Otherwise, How bout the 15-85? Its got a nice wide range on a cropper, the IQ is top notch even wide open and its one of the best companions for the 7D, You get more versatility in one lens which seems to be what you really want a zoom for...

If you really want f/2.8 though, the 17-55 is great

Okay, you perfectly understand what i want: I zoom for all occasions when i don´t want to swap lenses constantly.

As i do not already own the 50mm 1.4 and 28mm 1.8, I am not sure if i´d still need a 2.8 zoom lens or 4.0 is enough.

So if I wanna stay with 2.8 I´d take the 17-55mm and if not i´d go with the 24-105mm?

The 15-85mm is not what i want since it is even darker than the 24-105 is!

With also having 3 primes between 20 and 100mm, what would you recommend?

You cannot have it all.
I used both a 24-105 and a 17-55 on a 7D and they both perform very well.
I prefer the 24-105 for outside and portrait work and the 17-55 when I need the wider angle and if I shoot under lower light conditions.
I would suggest to keep the Tamron for when you need the 2.8 and go for a 24-105 wich has a wider range and excelent build quality. I have seen very nice pictures taken with the Tammy 28-75.
Have you considered the Sigma 30/1.4? Quite as usefull as the 28 you suggested, since the 7D has plenty of pixels to crop you might even skip the 50/1.4

stephan902 wrote in post #13782520
Okay, you perfectly understand what i want: I zoom for all occasions when i don´t want to swap lenses constantly.

As i do not already own the 50mm 1.4 and 28mm 1.8, I am not sure if i´d still need a 2.8 zoom lens or 4.0 is enough.

So if I wanna stay with 2.8 I´d take the 17-55mm and if not i´d go with the 24-105mm?

The 15-85mm is not what i want since it is even darker than the 24-105 is!

With also having 3 primes between 20 and 100mm, what would you recommend?

I'm going to be blunt here, The 24-105 is not what you want on a cropper, The range starts at a 38mm equivalent and it makes a pretty "bleh" walkaround for when you want to slap one lens on and just work with it...

The 15-85 is every bit as capable, Yes its a stop darker at 85mm, but its the best walkaround "slap a lens on and go for it" lens i have used for APS-C, and I've used it plenty of times in low crappy light, The IS works very well, So if you're not shooting something moving the fact its f/5.6 really isnt that big of an issue (FWIW, I have used it down at 1/8 at 85mm and gotten good results out of it) and i personally think its one of the best focusing lenses Canon ever put out

I've owned both, And the 17-55, and the Tamron 28-75 And spent time playing with the 24-70 Brick before

The idea behind the way i have my system setup is that if its not moving/i just want one lens on the camera, I grab the 15-85 and just go for it, IF i might need the isolation, i can easily toss the 28mm or even the 50mm in my pocket and end up with a more versatile setup than I'd have with JUST an f/2.8 zoom..

Between the primes, For portraits grab the 50mm, the focal length is going to give a more pleasing perspective as well as more background compression, For more general usage, the 28mm is nice to have as well.... I find the 100mm too long as a "general" usage thing...

For me, No prime can replace my zooms, and no zooms can replace my primes, They're just different tools for different situations to me, Zooms are for versatility and my primes are my specific targeted weapons

I really like the 24-105
I rented one for an event used it on my t2i and loved it. Everyone will say 24 is not wide enough on a crop but that depends on how and what you shoot. 38mm is wide angle, below 50mm is still wide. I have used the 17-55 as well and after seeing how sharp the 24-105 was I have decided to get it.

Been going back and forth on what to pick up next week. Was leaning towards the 24-70 or the 70-200 2.8 non is. But after seeing that I could get the 20 2.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 all for about a $100 less than either L zooms, I am strongly considering going that route. I had originally wanted to get away from switching lenses all the time, but the pros having multiple primes are starting to outway the cons.

Thorrulz wrote in post #13782397
I own a 7D and have done some research on the 3 favorites you have listed and from what I've uncovered.

Canon 17-55mm 2.8 is the sharpest lens at all apertures you can get for the 7D. Since it is a ef-s only lens it is built especially for the 1.6x body.

Canon 24-105mm 4.0 is a sharp lens even wide open and is a lens many child photographers prefer and is a preferred carry around everywhere lens chosen by many photogs.


Canon 24-70mm 2.8 is a lens I've actually heard doesn't perform as well optically on the 7D due to the dated optical design. While being a stellar performer on the full frame bodies it's not as sharp when using a 1.6x body.

What your choice really boils down to is what/who do you like to shoot and when/where?
Then go with the apertures and focal lengths you need.

what is your take on using canon 24-70 2.8 on 1d, 1.3x crop? Do you feel the it will be the same as using on the full frame, eg sharpness, IQ, etc ?

KenjiS wrote in post #13782542
I'm going to be blunt here, The 24-105 is not what you want on a cropper, The range starts at a 38mm equivalent and it makes a pretty "bleh" walkaround for when you want to slap one lens on and just work with it...

I would have to disagree, I love my 24-105 on my 60D. When I had an 18-135, I found myself using the longer (30-100) end of it anyway, so the 24-105 fits my shooting style perfectly. It may not work for you, but until he finds out what focal lengths he uses most, you can't say the 24-105 isn't what you want on a crop body.

chenga732 wrote in post #13782692
what is your take on using canon 24-70 2.8 on 1d, 1.3x crop? Do you feel the it will be the same as using on the full frame, eg sharpness, IQ, etc ?

I have had two 1D bodies (1D Classic & 1D MII) which are 1.3x and they worked great with zooms with an f/2.8 aperture. Sharp even wide open if that was the way the lens was designed of course. I have never shot with the 24-70 f/2.8 on either of the 1D bodies but being they are older dslrs I would think the 24-70 would perform very well on those bodies.

I shot sports primarily back in the 1D days so most of my experience comes with zooms starting at 70mm. Hope that helps a bit.