800 bucks - 17-55 or 24-105

I'm sort of on the fence on this one.
Respect your opinions given here, I'd like to hear your .02

On the used market, I can pick up a 17-55 EFS, or a 24-105 for around $800 (+/-)

Just got a 7D...

I'm looking for a general lens, "walkaround", perhaps some portraits on occasion.

I may be thinking about upgrading to FF sometime in the future, but not in the near future...

Right now the lens that sees the most use on the 7D is the kit 18-135

I'm liking the fact that the 24-105 has a little more reach...
I like the fact that the 17-55 is wider...

putting aside the possibility of upgrading to FF, which of these two lenses do you think will perform better on a 7D ?

thanks!

I find the 24-105 a bit long as a walkaround on my crop body, but great on my full frame. Out of the 2 you mention I would go with the 17-55. Two reasons, it has constant f2.8 for your portraits and is a better length as a walkaround lens on a crop body. Just sell it when you upgrade to FF and get most of your money back.

For that body the 17-55 without question.

I owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 for over five years while shooting a crop body -- including the 7D. I would take that lens any day over the 24-105 for a crop. On full frame, though, the 24-105L is the perfect range for a walk around zoom for me.

Another option, if you do not need f/2.8, would be the EFS 15-85mm, and you could add a fast prime or two. It offers more focal range at each end. If this lens had been available when I bought the 17-55, I would have probably went that route along with the 28mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 primes.

17-55

24-105, 17-55 is way too short for me to use as a walkaround/general purpose lens.

17-55 is you like to shoot wider, 24-105 if you prefer longer. Seriously, both perform well.

As the owner of a 50D, 5D II, 17-55 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4, I will say get the 17-55. That lens is the only reason I kept my 50D after buying the 5D II.

For crop, go with 17-55.

I would look at what focal lengths you used in your past photos. If you lean towards the wide or long end you have your answer. If you intend to get an ultrawide at some point maybe the 24-105 is a better option.

I recently had this choice to make for my 60D. I had a chance to get a white box new in the box U.S.A. version of the 24-105L from Adorama for $829. The 17-55IS would have been over $300 more, since you have to buy the lens hood.
I went for the 24-105L, but I already have a Tokina 12-24F4.
Either of the lenses can produce shots that will rival those you get from primes...at least at some focal lengths. It is not an easy choice, since both are good lenses. I am happy with the 24-105L. I wanted the long end. It is your call. For me, I didn't want the f2.8 aperture and the wide end as much as I wanted the range of the 24-105L.

17-55 was designed for crop sensors.
24-105L was designed for full frame sensors. you will notice shortcomings with the 24-105 when trying to shoot at the widest focal length of 24mm. If you plan to move up from the 7d, then the 24-105 would make sense. If you don't plan on moving up, i would absolutely go with the 17-55.

I have had both and think that the 17-55 is a better walk around. I wish it was a little longer, but the 24 was never wide enough on the 7D.

Owned both, I preferred the 24-105L because I found it more useful, and the bokeh was more pleasing to me. The 17-55 made me wish I had that extra reach.

I agree with the 17-55mm being the best mid-range zoom for a 1.6x crop camera. However, I like to match it with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a second 1.6x body because I often want to shoot with a longer focal length. Having those two focal range lenses at my finger tips without needing to switch lenses is great...

However, a 24-105mm matched with a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina if you are using a single camera would also be a viable alternative...

My rationale for that combination is that, I most often have more time to switch lenses when I am needing a wide angle lens than when I am needing a longer lens...

OTOH: the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, by virtue of its constant f/2.8 aperture, great low light auto focus and super image stabilization is a very nice low light lens - something you would not get with the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens...