Ask recommendation for lense for Canon 7D

For Canon new 7D, which lens is more preferable?
My main aim is to shoot landscape and portrait,so I am searching for a comprehensive lens to cover both shooting aims.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens

Taking the situation that I may advance APS-C to Full frame SLR into consideration, which is solution?

or please give your recommendation about other lens for Canon 7D.

Thanks

Well given the fact that you want to shoot landscapes i assume you have a tripod so IS wont help much
especially when you need to turn it off for shooting on a pod...
17-55 will only suit 1.6 crop so given the information above the 17-40 is a no brainer and a really good lens tat will work fantastically on a 1.6 or FF

rooeey wrote in post #9155956
Well given the fact that you want to shoot landscapes i assume you have a tripod so IS wont help much
especially when you need to turn it off for shooting on a pod...
17-55 will only suit 1.6 crop so given the information above the 17-40 is a no brainer and a really good lens tat will work fantastically on a 1.6 or FF

Most of the time, I don't use tripod outside.

rooeey wrote in post #9155956
Well given the fact that you want to shoot landscapes i assume you have a tripod so IS wont help much
especially when you need to turn it off for shooting on a pod...
17-55 will only suit 1.6 crop so given the information above the 17-40 is a no brainer and a really good lens tat will work fantastically on a 1.6 or FF

7D is a 1.6 crop. You do know that right?! Also, did you forget the OP said he wanted to do portraits?

I'd say go for the 17-55 2.8 IS. I use to own that lens and it is very good. A bit short for me at the time, but for most people it's an excellent length.

The IS does help on this lens (more so at the long end) and it's worth having.

55mm on the 7D will be 88mm FF equivalent, so great for portraits too. The 40mm on the L is 64mm FF. Which is a little wide for portraits IMHO.

The only question is: Do you see yourself going FF (5DII) in the future? If so, I'd say keep away from EF-S lenses.

17-55/2.8 IS.
When you move to FF, sell it and get the 24-105/4L IS.

No offense to the OP, but why do you want a comprehensive lens that does it all? For me, the greatest thing about a DSLR is the ability to change lenses for specific situations.

17-55 f/2.8 IS - no doubt

kimchibrown wrote in post #9156502
No offense to the OP, but why do you want a comprehensive lens that does it all? For me, the greatest thing about a DSLR is the ability to change lenses for specific situations.

Rookie and tight budget!

If you´re on a tight budget, you started in the wrong end.
Spend more on glass, not on the body.

How about the new Sigma 17-70 OS? Sounds very good for the price.

vote for 1740 + 85 1.8 / 100L macro

Ohh portraits i missed that bit though i am aware the 7D is a 1.6 crop i was referring to the intention of going to a FF which would be a 5D 5Dmk11 1DS2 or 3 which would not work well with a EFS lens though a 17-40 would and on a 1.6 could manage portraiture ...I do tend to write in a some what ambiguous way...

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9156006
7D is a 1.6 crop. You do know that right?! Also, did you forget the OP said he wanted to do portraits?

I'd say go for the 17-55 2.8 IS. I use to own that lens and it is very good. A bit short for me at the time, but for most people it's an excellent length.

The IS does help on this lens (more so at the long end) and it's worth having.

55mm on the 7D will be 88mm FF equivalent, so great for portraits too. The 40mm on the L is 64mm FF. Which is a little wide for portraits IMHO.

The only question is: Do you see yourself going FF (5DII) in the future? If so, I'd say keep away from EF-S lenses.

I'd have thought if you are just starting out (and have a limted budget) it will be a looong time before you move from the 7D -> FF, with the priority being building up a selection of lens. The 17-55 will be much more versitle and in my eyes the better choice, provided you don't need weather sealing.

I think if you shop carefully you might be able to get the 17-40 and 85/1.8 for not much more than the 17-55 alone would cost you. That would be better choices of lenses for each purpose.

If you needed a wider view and went to a third party wide angle lens like the $500 Tokina 12-24/4 II, you could definitely get that and the 85/1.8 for less than the 17-55 will cost. Might even have enough left for a 50/1.8 or something to put towards a better 50/1.4, to have two good portrait focal lengths.

Landscape and portrait in the same lens is a tough thing to try to do.

Landscape generally means standard to wide angle focal length(s), small f-stops, deep depth of field. On crop cameras the most likely focal length range is 10mm to 30mm. Doesn't need to be f2.8, an f4 will often be a sharper lens in fact.

Portrait usually calls for short telephoto focal length(s), large f-stops, shallow depth of field. On a crop camera, the most likely focal length range is 50mm to 85mm. F2 or larger aperture is desirable, which no zoom can do (on Canon... AFAIK, only Olympus has an f2 zoom at present.)

These aren't hard and fast rules... Just generally speaking.

So, any lens trying to "do it all" and cover both these types of shooting is going to compromise in some ways. Probably the best single lens is the EF-S 17-55, or a similar third party lens.

An interesting alternative portrait lens might be the new 60mm f2 Tamron lens. It's large aperture lends itself to portraiture, and it's also capable of 1:1 magnification macro shooting. I haven't actually used it... this is just from early reviews and the lens specs. But, you didn't mention macro shooting, anyway, so this might not be of interest to you.

Don't limit your choices by buying only FF capable lenses. If and when you go full frame sometime in the future, you'll be able to sell off whatever lens you get not pretty easily. Canon lenses tend to hold resale value better than third party lenses, on the whole.

If, by some chance, you are still in the planning stages and haven't actually bought a 7D yet, I agree with a previous response that you'd be far better served by buying a less expensive camera such as 50D or T1i/500D and putting the savings toward better lenses and/or a more complete kit of lenses for your purposes. The lenses you use will have much greater effect on your images than the camera body you choose... And likely will be in use on several generations of camera bodies, too. (Over the past eight or nine years, some of my lenses have been used on EOS-3, Elan 7E, 1V-HS film cameras, 10D, 30D, 40D (briefly), 1D MkIIN (briefly), 50D, 5D MkII and 7D cameras... so far. I've added lenses over the years. And actually only ever sold and replaced one.)

Personally go for the 24-70L. You obviously have full frame in mind so go for it. I would never pay the dollars for a 17-55. Yes it has IS but really at that focul length its just a plus. IS is great for long telephoto zooms ie 100+. But anything lower than 100 doesnt really need to have IS built into it (plus you will have a 7D and you can increase the iso if you need to shoot in lower light). Justifing the 1000 price tag for the 17-55 is tough because its so close to the price of quality built L lenses. Yes he could sell the 17-55 but hes not going to recoup all 1000 back. Do yourself a favor and buy the 28-70L or the 17-40L. You will get great optics plus a durably lense which you can take out there and not worry that it isnt as tough as the body you have. You will save yourself money in the long run and the hassle of having to sell off lenses.