Unsure which lens to replace my second 17-55

I dropped my 7D and 17-55 the other day, the lens has been returned as uneconomic to repair, the camera's costing US$350 or so to replace part of the body and to calibrate the AF system. Strangely enough the 17-55 that broke is the one the insurance company bought me after I dropped it last time. I'm not 100% sure what to replace it with.

My current lens lineup is:
- One working 17-55 F2.8 IS lenses (plus two broken ones)
- 10-22
- 30 F1.4
- 100 F2.8 macro
- 70-200 F2.8 IS

The lens will be used by my assistant, as well as being my main backup. We do 80% outside weddings, and strobe the room at receptions. The lens options are:
- Another 17-55. Not sure I want another as they seem fragile and I have a working one.
- A 24-70 F2.8. I hear it can be tough to get one that works really well, plus I really like IS.
- A 24-105 F4L. This could be a single all day lens for my assistant, or I might use it instead of the 17-55 for outside ceremonies, meaning I could have just the 7D and my assistant could use the 70-200.
- 18-135 or 18-200 F3.5-F5.6. Slow, consumer quality, really only good for my assistant outside or when we're strobing the room at receptions.

I think the 24-105 has the most advantages, but i'd like to hear others thoughts.

Ive never dropped a lens and body but I had one in my hand that took a big hit from someone dropping a chair on it one time, thankfully both camera and lens were fine. The lens took the main hit and I am sure if it had been the 17-55 f2.8 IS it would have been damaged in some way, thankfully it was the 24-70 brick so was fine.

One of the reasons I switched to full frame as my prime camera was to get away from the 17-55 f2.8 IS, its a great performing lens as your well aware Tim but its just too damn fragile 4 or 5 copies of it between me and Nick told us that!

Problem is of course is that it suits crop cameras perfectly as an all day 75% of shots sort of lens and anything else is gonna be a compromise.

16-35 f2.8 L would be my choice if I was still shooting crops but I reckon it would feel pretty short at times.

24-70 feels just horrid on a crop, its neither one thing or the other.

Best option for yah, ditch the 17-55's and get a FF body and the 24-70

Thanks Jon I want this lens to be EF, so that if I decide to get a full frame camera at some point i'll have a good main zoom. Given that, and the high iso performance of current cameras, the F4 lens is probably good enough. I'll always have fast primes that for low light/narrow DOF.

Mostly because of Lloyd's experience i'm not keen on the 24-70. Like I said I also really like IS.

The 24-70 will suffer significant damage from a fall too (my first copy did), as would a 24-105.

You said many times you never saw a need for full frame. I am in shock...are you not feeling well? Has the Earth's axis suddenly shifted?

The #1 solution is to stop dropping your lenses/equipment.

Any EF standard zoom is going to feel too long for you on the wide end.

I'm not aware of Lloyd's experience, though I'm curious.

I'm a big fan of the 24-70, but one of my bodies is FF and that lens is on it nearly all day. I've never owned the 17-55 and though my other camera is a 50D, it's never appealed to me. I don't view IS as being especially valuable at these focal lengths. If you're shooting in a dark location, I assume you'd reach for the 30 1.4 anyway, no? And if you're typically outside, should shutter speed/camera shake ever be much of a problem? If IS is that important to you, then the 24-105 becomes more interesting. Certainly, there are times I'd like that extra little bit of reach (especially on the FF), but I felt there was enough difference in IQ to get the 24-70. My copy did need to be sent for some refinement when I first got it, but it's been flawless ever since. Every so often, I'll be looking over portraits taken during a wedding and some will have stunning IQ. I'll check the EXIF expecting to find that it was one of my primes but it was the 24-70. I'm a big believer in this lens.

All of that said, if this will be given to your assistant, what kind of images do you look for from them; wide, middle, long? Is 24 on a crop camera ever going to be wide enough to get you the looks you want them to deliver? If yes, 24-70 would be my choice.

You also might want to invest a little money in a good neck strap?

In your position Tim, I'd go for the 24-105 IS, no question. It's around the same price as yet another 17-55 f2.8 IS, and it would work well for a second shooter with a crop camera. If you needed to use it as your main lens before you go FF, you already have the 10-22 to go wider. I suspect it would make a pretty good combo with a 7D - and if Canon were to make a FF 7D, bingo!

Canon 24-70 can be a great lens, but it's heavy and, as you say, QC seems inconsistent ...ours was the only new lens we've ever bought that didn't focus quite right out of the box (fixed under warranty - but at the price it shouldn't have to be).

We've also just bought a Canon 1000D and 18-55 IS kit lens to use in a photobooth we're putting together, and I have to say we've been surprised by the quality this little IS kit lens can produce ...if our main system was still Canon, I think I'd have one of these lenses in the car as an emergency safety net.

Rob

form wrote in post #9538532
The 24-70 will suffer significant damage from a fall too (my first copy did), as would a 24-105.

Depends how high it falls from and what it is falling onto. Obviously no one wants to drop their camera and lens but I think the point is that the 24-70 is a lot more robust than a 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Me and Nick broke a 17-55 at our very first paid wedding, clipped it on a door frame whilst rushing around and it cracked the barrel ... having seen what our 24-70's have been through since we bought them I dont think they would have been damaged under the same circumstances. They aren't indestructible of course, you have to look after them, but I think they are a lot more robust than the "plastic fantastic" 17-55 f2.8 IS.

If by robust you mean that you could throw the "brick" through a window while the 17-55 would only bounce off, then yes I agree with you.

I'll put in another vote for the 24-105. It's my primary walk-around lens, and I find it to be very nice. I'm one who prefers a little more reach, though, as I prefer tighter crops most of the time. I do also have a 10-22 to complement it for wider shots.

Tim,
I don't recommend the 24-105 as Canon's focus system is designed around f2.8 lenses to achieve critical focus. Also f4 in the dark is no fun. This is just my personal findings... it may be different for some.

As far as 24-70 for 17-55 I think that is again personal and what your used to. I make 24-70 work for me I don't care what situation I find myself in. I use a 1.3 crop body however.

Edit:
Sorry I missed the part about being outside... I think you would be okay to use the 24-105 outside.

P.S.
If you have to ask which lens... sorry just having fun with ya!

i've rented/borrowed and really liked the 24-105. this is the lens i want to get for my assistant and it would make an excellent "backup" or outdoor lens in my opinion.

the wide end is a little long on a crop, but I usually don't have my assistant taking full body shots, I have her focus more on the top halves of people while I use the 17-55 on my main body.

especially since you don't shoot in dark churches a majority of the time the 24-105 would get my recommendation as well.

oh, and i think the 7D has all cross type focus points for the f4 lens.. but then again, your assistant is probably NOT using your 7D!

bigarchi wrote in post #9540507
oh, and i think the 7D has all cross type focus points for the f4 lens.. but then again, your assistant is probably NOT using your 7D!

I may be incorrect but think it is only activated at f2.8 with the center being even more so (what Canon call high precision at that point)

yeah, you may very well be correct.

form wrote in post #9538713
If by robust you mean that you could throw the "brick" through a window while the 17-55 would only bounce off, then yes I agree with you.

this cracked me up haha

anyhow this is what is says from the canon website about the 7D's focus points. I had to look out of curiosity, even though i think its a moot point for this discussion lol:

"The actual AF system in the EOS 7D is entirely new, with a totally new AF sensor having 19 cross-type AF points. Each and every point, including those located farthest from the center, is a standard-precision cross-type sensor, which can be used with any lens (or lens plus extender combination) with effective maximum apertures of f/5.6 or faster. Like the previous EOS 50D, the center AF point also has a separate, diagonal pair of high-precision line sensors, which provide even greater precision; these are automatically used with lenses f/2.8 or faster."
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=3049

so from the sound of this, 2.8 or faster gets you high precision diagonal center sensors, but they are all cross type with f/5.6 or faster lenses.