Looking for a generalist short to mid-range zoom lens

So like the title says I'm planning (loooong term plan) on getting myself something in the general use ranges for focal lengths. This basically amounts to getting a lens that can fit below my 70-200mm and above an 8-16mm - because at present I've only got a 35mm in that slot.


Originally I was thinking a 24-105mm f4 IS L. Giving me a fairly wide 24mm coupled with a nice, decently long reach at 105mm; meaning I didn't have to jump onto the 70-200mm to get a little more reach.

However as of late I've been thinking that whilst camera ISOs are getting better, I still only have a 7D and chances are a 7DMII is a long way off (and isn't going to be a night and day ISO difference at the higher end). So sometimes if I'm shooting indoors or in lower light being able to open up to f2.8 might be more important; one stop difference only, but that can be all the difference. In addition there are creative options that open up with the extra stop of light.

I'm also not planning on getting a series of prime lenses within this range so its not like I'll expect to have a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm of apertures smaller than f2.8 for those low light conditions (I'm not saying they are bad lenses, but just that my focus isn't geared toward really establishing a solid selection of primes in the shorter focal lengths).


So then comes the option of a 24-70mm f2.8 lens. However hte market there has changed a fair bit.

First up Canon has a new version that retailing at a very high price. After that there is the original version second hand (still very good, not as good in the corners, but still a very solid performer). Sigma and Tamron also have their own versions on the market, although I think I'm right in that they are the same generation as the original Canon version (ergo putting the Canon MII at the top of the game in this focal range at present).

So those are my current thoughts on the market options; are there any others that might be worth considering; or are some of the 3rd party superior to how I've listed them above.

For some context my primary interests are wildlife and macro (ergo why I've really not got much in this focal length range thus far). Some landscapes, general family shots (where this lens likely would see much of its use) and also more recently some equine event shooting (where the lens would likely see its second greatest amount of use - maybe more if I get more into that side of things).

At the moment I'm warming to the Canon MII option - however it has a very high price tag attached to it; so at a practical level it might not be viable - hence my deliberations as to other choices that might be suitable. Heck I could even be persuaded back to my original choice of the 24-105mm f4 IS L (half as much as the other Canon option I've listed).

How do you envision using this lens?. The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, its also called a brick for a reason. It's a big heavy chunk of glass. The 24-105 is a great lens and is a decent walkaround lens on full frsme. But ghe lens you really should get for the 7D is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is. Its L sharp and fits the gap in your kit bettrr thsn either of the above.

Another vote for the 17-55IS. It's a terrific lens for landscapes and family shots and even though I've used it a few times for equestrian shots in a small arena, it would never be my first choice for events. Either your 70-200 or your Sigma 120-300 wold be much better choices and even your Sigma 150 could be used in a pinch (I know because I've done it).

17-55. You wont miss the 55-70 gap.

I love the 24-105 on the 7D; indoor shots I deal with by applying flash. I tend to not like too much space around my subjects, so the 17-5x options for crop bodies have not been lenses I was happy with. But, they're good lenses for the purpose if you like wider shots with more 'space'

Although I absolutely love my 15-85mm on my 7D, it is an OUTSTANDING walk-around combination, the 17-55 is faster for in-door situations. So I must agree with the above. If you did all your shooting outside then I'd recommend the 15-85 for the added range.

But is the 55-70mm gap worth the 17-24mm gap? I know that the visual difference will be greater, I'm just not sure if I'll use the wider end of the lens all that much (35mm already does decently well for me, so going out to 24mm should be pretty darn good).

Bob - I agree for general shooting the 70-200mm will be the one on the camera; but I find that 70mm (esp on crop) is just too tight sometimes to be practical.

Overread wrote in post #17220083
Bob - I agree for general shooting the 70-200mm will be the one on the camera; but I find that 70mm (esp on crop) is just too tight sometimes to be practical.

I have never found the need for anything shorter than 70mm when shooting equestrian. My tools of choice are 85mm, 135mm and 200mm. I have used my 70-300 and 100-400, but I normally shoot with primes. Even when shooting portraits that include horses, I'll use the same primes, but will normally switch to my 5D.

I've used the 17-55IS and 50mm when just screwing around shooting practice sessions, but never for actual events.

Overread wrote in post #17220083
But is the 55-70mm gap worth the 17-24mm gap? I know that the visual difference will be greater, I'm just not sure if I'll use the wider end of the lens all that much (35mm already does decently well for me, so going out to 24mm should be pretty darn good).

Bob - I agree for general shooting the 70-200mm will be the one on the camera; but I find that 70mm (esp on crop) is just too tight sometimes to be practical.

Id much rather have a gap between 55 snd 70 than one on the wide end. If I took a shot at 55 or 70 beyond a small bit of magnification you wouldnt notice much difference in perspective. One the wide end the difference is much more noticeable.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17220184
Id much rather have a gap between 55 snd 70 than one on the wide end. If I took a shot at 55 or 70 beyond a small bit of magnification you wouldnt notice much difference in perspective. One the wide end the difference is much more noticeable.

Agreed! If I have a gap, I would prefer it at that 55-70 range; it's just not a common range to frame anything, normally

I use the 24-105 as my primary lens. It's a little narrow at 24mm on a crop, but if I can't back away from the scene sufficiently I pull out my ultra-wide lens. The IS helps a lot. IQ is on par with the 17-55mm, from what I've read. I enjoy the reach it has - it minimizes changing lenses. The Sigma 24-105 is supposed to be better - 8 years newer in design, sharper, with a bit better IS. Definitely worth a look. The remaining question is if you can live with f/4.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17219977
How do you envision using this lens?. The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, its also called a brick for a reason. It's a big heavy chunk of glass. The 24-105 is a great lens and is a decent walkaround lens on full frsme. But ghe lens you really should get for the 7D is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is. Its L sharp and fits the gap in your kit bettrr thsn either of the above.

Agree with the above !

Weight isn't too much a worry for me - the 70-200mm f2.8 I can use all day without a bother so even "the brick" weighs in lighter than that.

When I had only crop cams I had a tamron 28-75, and it really wasn't practical as a general purpose lens. I went to paris on a business trip so only brought the 7d and 28-75, and really regretted it. When the tamron 17-50 came out I switched to that and it was much more practical and useful - it is much easier to crop a shot than to add pixels. I then upgraded to the 17-55IS and frankly that was the best general purpose zoom (even better than both the 24-70 and 24-105).

Depending how the 7d2 performs, I am probably going to sell one of my 5d3's and get a 7d2 plus 17-55IS I miss that lens so much.

My only advice here is to not think too much on the coverage range of all lenses and think more about how each lens will be used on its own.

What I mean is that some folks who have a 10-22 and at 70-200 zoom might think that a 24-70 is a perfect companion (on 1.6X format). But if this were me, I'd hate that setup because I would be constantly switching between the 10-22 and the 24-70 as I most commonly shoot at about 15mm and 35mm (on 1.6X).

So for me a lens like the 15-85 or the 17-55 would be much better despite having more overlap on the wide end. Overlap in a range you use a lot is a good thing,