24-105 on a 7D?

I used a 50D with 10-22 + 24-105 + 50/1.4 for over a year and must say this was a very versatile combo. I also owned a Tammy 17-50 but it did not see much use because the 10-22 covered the WA, the 50/1.4 was better for portrait and I felt 50mm was too limiting on the long end. I would definitely recommend the 24-105!!!

Sportidi wrote in post #10718855
Thats a big call. Does anyone else agree with this?

Absolutely not, and whenever I see somebody making this type of blanket statement it reduces my opinion of them. If the 17-50 focal range works for them, great. More power to them. If that focal range works for you then the Tamron does get very good reviews and you should serisouly consider it. But anybody who ass-umes that you or I should be shooting the same subjects they do, the same way they do, with the same focal length they use is just being an ass.

ETA: It sounds like sebr's experience these lenses is closer to my own.

Great thread!

I have been using the 24-70 with my 7D for about 1 month now (just got the 7D). I have been missing the focal length I had with my 70-200, and I have been considering either trading the 24-70 for a 70-200 or a 24-105. I am leaning more towards the 24-105, then picking up a flash for the indoor stuff to make up for the F4.

Great ideas in the thread though!

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10709770
how bad of an idea is this? I'm looking for a mid range to go with my 10-22 and 100-400. I shoot a bit of everything, but my main focus with a mid range zoom is action shots (surfing, skiing, sailing), auto racing, landscaping and product shots. A LOT of that is stopped down (75%) but the rest is wide open where I'd like SOME separation... How bad does f/4 kill the ability to get some separation on a cropper?

Here's my thinking:
24-105 is sealed and has an amazing range on a cropper when paired with a 10-22 (16-160 covered with great IQ effectively). But it's "only" f/4. It's also in my price range IS is great on boats or for panning action (2 things I do a lot of).
24-70, give me the 2.8 I'd prefer, but it's bigger and heavier (better hood design though). It's more expensive though, and it's range is less (but still 112 effective). I also lose the IS.
17-55, IS and 2.8, but limited range and not sealed?
15-85, IS, not fast, least expensive, not sealed, less range than the 24-105 and the 15-23mm isn't helping in my situation, this would be a better ONE LENS option though, but I'm fine with 2.

I also feel the 24-70 might get refreshed soon. This might mean a lot of things, but a 2.8 version with IS is only going to be more expensive and bigger/heavier, so it'd be out for me, but it COULD mean cheaper used versions of the old one. But I think I'm really sold on the 24-105 on crop for the wicked FL with IS and being sealing (for skiing/sailing).

Thoughts?

I'd LOVE to see some examples of the 24-105 on crop that specifically show some background separation as well as the IS being put to good use (panning shots).

edit: oh, and for low light I don't consider 2.8 all that fast anyway. I use primes for low light work because another 1.5~2 stops faster than 2.8 anyway, so ignore that in your reasoning in this case please.

the break between 22 and 24mm is a rough one for me.

ed rader

"24-105 is sealed and has an amazing range on a cropper when paired with a 10-22 (16-160 covered with great IQ effectively). But it's "only" f/4. It's also in my price range IS is great on boats or for panning action (2 things I do a lot of)."

Jacobsen1 could you please explain how you can pan with the IS on with the 24-105 it does not have mode 2 for paning?

Jacob.
No question, on my 7D my go to walk around lens is the 24-105 f/4 L IS.The extended range compared to the 17-55 allows me to capture those interesting shots while walking city streets.
Having the 10-22 provides you the UWA coverage needed. The build quality and "L" designation really show on this nice all round lens.

Sportidi wrote in post #10718855
Thats a big call. Does anyone else agree with this?

Absolutely not; that's why I just bought the 24-105 to replace my 17-50 on the 7D. But it's one of those 'personal' decisions, based on what you shoot and what requirements you have; as a statement of fact, it doesn't hold water.

For me, the 24-105 suits my needs way better than the 17-50 ever could. For someone shooting wide angle shots, larger subjects (cars, planes on static display come to mind), etc, then the 17-5x series might suit them better.

Snydremark wrote in post #10723465
Absolutely not; that's why I just bought the 24-105 to replace my 17-50 on the 7D. But it's one of those 'personal' decisions, based on what you shoot and what requirements you have; as a statement of fact, it doesn't hold water.

For me, the 24-105 suits my needs way better than the 17-50 ever could. For someone shooting wide angle shots, larger subjects (cars, planes on static display come to mind), etc, then the 17-5x series might suit them better.

The comparison was regarding the 17-50 and 24-70, not the 24-105. I already stated I think the 24-105 is the best overall carry lens on the crop.

krb wrote in post #10720611
Absolutely not, and whenever I see somebody making this type of blanket statement it reduces my opinion of them. If the 17-50 focal range works for them, great. More power to them. If that focal range works for you then the Tamron does get very good reviews and you should serisouly consider it. But anybody who ass-umes that you or I should be shooting the same subjects they do, the same way they do, with the same focal length they use is just being an ass.

ETA: It sounds like sebr's experience these lenses is closer to my own.

So much for the "comments and critique appreciated" in your signature lol. You must not have appreciated my opinion. This is a message board where people post their opinions. If you're going to get so worked up over, you shouldn't read it.

So you don't think highly of me. haha

the 24-105 on a cropper (40D) has been the perfect walk around mid-range zoom for me. It fits comfortably between a wide angle (whichever flavor you like) and a telephoto zoom. It is easy to carry and does what it is supposed to do, very well. It should work equally well on the 7D.

John

docjohn23 wrote in post #10731861
the 24-105 on a cropper (40D) has been the perfect walk around mid-range zoom for me. It fits comfortably between a wide angle (whichever flavor you like) and a telephoto zoom. It is easy to carry and does what it is supposed to do, very well. It should work equally well on the 7D.

John

+1 here. I bought 24-105 when I had 7D, and never looked back. Excellent lens for the money. Much sharper than my Tamron 28-75 was, and superior AF performance.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10710748
yeah, the 15-85 is certainly a great ONE lens option, but for landscaping I "need" wider than 15mm. But for when I might want JUST ONE lens it would be a much better solution. It's also cheaper, smaller, but at the loss of IS (I'll call the speed even since it's close enough).

This is an old comment i'm quoteing, but I just wanted to point out that the 15-85 does indeed have IS if that is what your were saying here.

You mentioned f4 and subject seperation on a crop camera, and it's borderline. Pretty decent at 100mm, but not at 24-50mm.