Bye bye 17-55 and thanks for all the fish.

Numenorean wrote in post #14046557
Selling the 7D as well? If not, then selling the 17-55 is not the smartest choice.

To replace the 17-55 on full frame you should get the 24-70, preferably the MkII if you can afford it. Especially if you were not pleased with the IQ of the 17-55.

Yes, selling the 7D. The IQ isn't bad, I just don't think it lives up to it's price and I've been spoiled by the 70-200 & 135.

mikekelley wrote in post #14046559
be a man and replace it with a 50mm prime or a combination of primes, and be happier than ever

I don't carry more than one lens with me most of the time unless I am travelling. Even then I usually only leave the hotel with one on me. It is usually the 17-55 if I am indoors, or 70-200 if I am out. If I am doing indoor soccer I'll shoot the 135.

I thought about getting the 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 again. I've owned both. Liked the 85mm a lot, didn't like the 50mm. I thought the 85mm would be a better prime for a ff than the 50mm since it is built better, seems to have much better image quality, and a decent focal length. I probably will end up with one or two more primes not long after I get the 5D III.

I heard a lot of great things about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 but not sure how it would be on a FF, was on my list for the 7D.

What I mean is that the 24-105 is quite similar in capability to the 17-55 when you compare the formats, although it is just a bit better at everything. It's a bit wider, a bit longer, capable of a bit less DOF. And when you consider the ISO capability of the larger sensor the one stop difference becomes a wash.

IMO the 24-105L is damn near perfect as a walkabout zoom on a FF body, and it is enough better than I guess I have to say I strongly prefer it to the 17-55 on 1.6X. The real difference for me is just that little bit on the wide end which (for me) allows me to skip dragging along the UWA most of the time.

The 24-70 to me is a different kettle of fish. To me this relates to how you want to deal with low light and very shallow DOF. On 1.6X, I felt like no zoom was really fast enough for when I wanted a fast lens.

On FF, I find f/2.8 is fast enough most of the time. I think having a couple f/2.8 zooms like 24-70 and 70-200 means that you can skip primes altogether or just get a targeted one. And if you do so, the wide end (24mm, 35mm or 50mm) is likely where you will need a prime.

If you have a 70-200, it is not as likely that you will be using it for the kind of loose framed shots where you need a really fast aperture.

Saxi wrote in post #14046544
I am leaning towards the 24-105, it seems like the best option.

I think the 17-55 is over priced because of the lack of weather sealing (or any sealing for that fact, 1 month after use it looks like it vacuumed lint from a dryer) and the IQ is no where near as good as many of the L lenses, but it is in the price range of a L.

I was considering the 24-70 I, but might as well get the II if I go that route. I think the 24-105 is the best fit.

Maybe it's time to post with your brain rather than your emotions. I've had my 17-55 for most of a year and I can't find a speck of dust in it even with a magnifying glass. And I live and shoot in the naturally dusty environment of the eastern plains of Colorado. And for the bodies that the lens fits on, weather sealing is redundant since those bodies aren't sealed either.

You run off at the keyboard just to try and unfairly influence anyone who might be considering this excellent lens, arguably the best EF-S crop sensor lens that Canon makes. Seems like more of a post to brag about ordering the MkIII than anything else.

Dust makes no difference anyhow.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14046654
Dust makes no difference anyhow.

I've owned something like 20 EOS lenses, and they all have had some dust in them.

Preeb wrote in post #14046644
Maybe it's time to post with your brain rather than your emotions. I've had my 17-55 for most of a year and I can't find a speck of dust in it even with a magnifying glass. And I live and shoot in the naturally dusty environment of the eastern plains of Colorado. And for the bodies that the lens fits on, weather sealing is redundant since those bodies aren't sealed either.

You run off at the keyboard just to try and unfairly influence anyone who might be considering this excellent lens, arguably the best EF-S crop sensor lens that Canon makes. Seems like more of a post to brag about ordering the MkIII than anything else.

Wow, you found my secret motive. Brilliant work.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14046654
Dust makes no difference anyhow.

I know it isn't a huge problem, I just hate seeing all the specs build up in it. Mostly my ocd.

Forgive me, but I find these questions to be senseless. You're asking for a "replacement" for the 17-55...the completely obvious answer is the 24-70 as it seems that the only aspect you were quite fond of was the focal length. Version mkI vs mkII is even a more simple dilemma to resolve; if you are willing to spend the extra cash, then of course the mkII is the winner.

Now if you're asking for a lens that will be most useful to you on full frame, again, senseless as there isn't a single person here that can make that determination besides yourself. If you are wanting a more versatile lens, then the 24-105 is an obvious choice. If you want prime quality, then you will need to decide which focal length you use most.

If you haven't picked up on it yet, my point is that you are asking questions in which only you can answer.

Dang, I'm strongly considering this lens for my t3i and now you made me have doubts! The reviews I've seen have been pretty favorable though...it may not be "L" quality but I don't like the focal lengths of the 24-70 and 24-105 on my crop

It's a good problem that you have Saxi, trying to figure out what lens to match up to the 5DIII. Congrats. I agree with the other ideas that 24-105 would be just about perfect. If you can swing the new 24-70 mkII, that would be an incredible match. I've been very happy with my 17-55. Yes it has some minor shortcomings but it's been my work horse lens.

Rob, outstanding photos! Are you also getting the 5DIII?

I seem to have a very similar setup to yours...and for the most part, I agree. With my 7D, the 17-55 was a great lens, but I liked the 70-200 f/4L IS more. The pictures just seemed to pop more than the 17-55 (which BTW, awesome pictures Rob Dickinson). I never bought the 17-55 for build quality, so it never bothered me. Although I will say mine has held up fine and there is only 1 small speck of dust that has been there since the first month or so. Everything is still tight and works flawlessly. I do baby all my equipment though.

Funny enough, I like the Sigma 30mm more than the 17-55 or the 70-200...Both in sharpness and cause I'm a little bit of a fast glass junkie. I think I grabbed an excellent copy of this lens and feel very fortunate I won the Sigma lottery first try. By and far, this will be my hardest lens to let go as it does not fit full-frame.

Like you, I pre-ordered a 5D3. As a replacement for the 17-55, I'm also pre-ordered for the 24-70 II (expensive two months, I know...also just bought an S100 to put the cherry on top). They should pair up nicely and last me for a long time. While I'm sure the 24-105 is great, I want all f/2.8 or faster glass. Plus there is no doubt in my mind the new 24-70 II is going to put the beat down on both the old 24-70 as well as the 24-105.

Anyways, my plan is to move from a
7D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, and 30mm f/1.4
to a
5D3, 24-70 f/2.8L II, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II setup before the end of the year...Then time to look at some fisheyes and primes.

Saxi wrote in post #14046615
...I heard a lot of great things about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 but not sure how it would be on a FF, was on my list for the 7D.

The Sigma 30 won't work on FF.

cee22 wrote in post #14046815
Dang, I'm strongly considering this lens for my t3i and now you made me have doubts! The reviews I've seen have been pretty favorable though...it may not be "L" quality but I don't like the focal lengths of the 24-70 and 24-105 on my crop

Don't let one review persuade you against picking up the 17-55. It really is fantastic. I don't want to hijack Saxi's thread so I'll leave it at that.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14046622
IMO the 24-105L is damn near perfect as a walkabout zoom on a FF body,

Agree with this. If you travel and only want to take one lens this would have to be it on a FF body. No, it doesn't stack up against the 70-200 or some of the F/2.8 lens but with the range it is more versatile as a walkaround on a FF. If you want good low light and really narrow depth of field stuff buy yourself some good primes in the f/1.4 zone once you get settled in.

mitchrapp wrote in post #14046834
The Sigma 30 won't work on FF.

It will work, but vignettes very badly, like looking out the end of a round pipe. I sold mine for that reason. It was still tack sharp on the 5D2 though if you didn't mind cropping the daylights out of the outside of the frame.

JLai81 wrote in post #14046822
I seem to have a very similar setup to yours...and for the most part, I agree. With my 7D, the 17-55 was a great lens, but I liked the 70-200 f/4L IS more. The pictures just seemed to pop more than the 17-55 (which BTW, awesome pictures Rob Dickinson). I never bought the 17-55 for build quality, so it never bothered me. Although I will say mine has held up fine and there is only 1 small speck of dust that has been there since the first month or so. Everything is still tight and works flawlessly. I do baby all my equipment though.

Funny enough, I like the Sigma 30mm more than the 17-55 or the 70-200...Both in sharpness and cause I'm a little bit of a fast glass junkie. I think I grabbed an excellent copy of this lens and feel very fortunate I won the Sigma lottery first try. By and far, this will be my hardest lens to let go as it does not fit full-frame.

Like you, I pre-ordered a 5D3. As a replacement for the 17-55, I'm also pre-ordered for the 24-70 II (expensive two months, I know...also just bought an S100 to put the cherry on top). They should pair up nicely and last me for a long time. While I'm sure the 24-105 is great, I want all f/2.8 or faster glass. Plus there is no doubt in my mind the new 24-70 II is going to put the beat down on both the old 24-70 as well as the 24-105.

Anyways, my plan is to move from a
7D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, and 30mm f/1.4
to a
5D3, 24-70 f/2.8L II, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II setup before the end of the year...Then time to look at some fisheyes and primes.

You get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? That's the lens I was seriously considering a while ago for the 7D. I heard it is great and was considering picking it up.