Replacement for Tamron 17-50 for use on Canon R7

As per the title I've got an itch to replace my ageing Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) for some L quality glass to act as my walk around and landscape, garden photography lens. I like the contrast and sharpness shown by my other L glass

For context my lens collection is Canon 10-22, Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200 f4, Canon 400 f5.6

Looking at my Lightroom stats shows my images with this lens to be approx 1/3 each at the extreme ends with the rest scattered at a variety of focal lengths in between

Reviews suggest an EF 16-35 f4 performs well but this then leaves a significant gap until the 70mm end of my 70-200 f4

So is my only realistic choice either the EF 24-105 f4 or look down the back of the sofa for the RF version and fall back on the 10-22 for wider shots

All advice appreciated - I'm still content to use adapted EF glass

What about the 24-70? With that you are covered between you 10-22 to 70-200.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19470418
What about the 24-70? With that you are covered between you 10-22 to 70-200.

Thanks for that. Would have to be the EF version as budget won't stretch to rf

The EF gives amazing photos.

You might also want to look at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. I have this lens and have been extremely happy with it. Before purchasing, I compared it to the EF flavors and thought it performed as well and even better at some focal lengths. I don't think it gets much love on this site, but it really is a very nice lens and is cheaper than the EF.

Taxboy wrote in post #19462179
As per the title I've got an itch to replace my ageing Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) for some L quality glass to act as my walk around and landscape, garden photography lens. I like the contrast and sharpness shown by my other L glass

For context my lens collection is Canon 10-22, Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200 f4, Canon 400 f5.6

Looking at my Lightroom stats shows my images with this lens to be approx 1/3 each at the extreme ends with the rest scattered at a variety of focal lengths in between

Reviews suggest an EF 16-35 f4 performs well but this then leaves a significant gap until the 70mm end of my 70-200 f4

So is my only realistic choice either the EF 24-105 f4 or look down the back of the sofa for the RF version and fall back on the 10-22 for wider shots

All advice appreciated - I'm still content to use adapted EF glass

Don't do it. The non-VC Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a pretty darned sharp lens. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM might seem a logical alternative and is a fine lens itself... but that Tamron matches it (the VC version doesn't, by the way). The same is true of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. See for yourself. At both their max apertures (where they're "at their worst") the Canon lens is slightly sharper in the extreme corners at 16mm (17mm on the Tamron). At 24mm they are very similar and at 35mm they're identical. But the Tamron is a stop faster and has the additional focal lengths from 36 to 50mm.

The 24-105mm lenses can be used on APS-C cameras, sure (been there, done something similar with a 28-135mm and a 24-70mm). But that would be a "normal to moderate telephoto" range rather than "wide to normal to short telephoto"... and again you are looking at at least one stop less bright lens.

So I'd recommend you keep using what you've got until Canon gets around to making an RF-S lens with similar range. I suspect that Canon will be bringing out an RF-S 11-22mm first... but who knows!