24-70 vs 17-55 on 7D

17-55 is glued to my 40d, use other lenses for stuff in the 56-70 range

klr.b wrote in post #11024145
the brick does 56-70mm better than the 17-55. for me, that focal range didn't matter and i wanted wider. i also don't care about having a gap in my focal range.

think about all the people dying for an upgrade of the 24-70. people are begging for better optics and IS. no one's really dying for an upgrade of the 17-55. obviously, a better build may be welcomed by many, but no one's begging canon for it.

agreed...i rather have a little dust ( although i dont have this problem ), than to be missing IS...and from my experince with "The Brick" its pretty soft wide open at 70mm. What amazes me about the 17-55 is that its just as sharp at 2.8 as its at 5.6.

I have both. Love the IS on the 17-55 and the range on the 24-70. If you don't need the IS or the 17 to 24mm range and can only have one then I would get the 24-70. They are both equally sharp IMO. I would love to see a 24-70 IS but only because then I would have the best of both worlds.

beerba wrote in post #10998502
I am going to buy a 7D, but i dont know whitch lens to buy with it.
The 24-70/2.8L USM or 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

Whitch lens would be the best lens on the 7D?

Haven't read all six pages and I'm sure you've made a choice by now but just for giggles, I shoot a 7D and have had both lenses on the camera. In fact, I moved up to the 24-70 from the 17-55 after I acquired a 5D Mark II this year. Before moving to the 24-70, I'd shot the 17-55mm on a 40D and later my 7D for about three years.

For me, the 17-55mm was such a marked improvement over my 17-85mm kit lens that I had absolutely no regrets about buying it. I'd heard horror stories about dust getting inside the front element and IS failures but, I had no such issues (dust was minor and never impact IQ). The 17-55mm remains one of my favorite lenses even though I no longer own one. That said, my opinion is that if you are exclusively shooting crop-bodies with no intention of moving to full-frame anytime soon, the 17-55mm is a better general purpose lens that provides the 7D with coverage similar to that of the 24-70L when mounted to a full-frame body.

There is no denying the 24-70L is a better built lens. I saw no evidence to support claimes it is sharper than the 17-55 on a crop-body or that it offered any more contrast or better colors. That said, it certainly isn't as wide. If wide angles aren't an issue for you or you plan to pair the 24-70L with something along the lines of the EF-s 10-22mm for wide and ultra-wide angle coverage, then by all means, roll with the 24-70L. It balances well on my 7D and if I'm our shooting both my 5D Mark II and the 7D, I'll often put the 24-70L on the 7D to take over where the 17-40L leaves off on the 5D Mark II.

One last comment...The only reason I don't own the 17-55mm IS (or the 10-22mm for that matter) is because I now own a 5D Mark II. Had I never been offered the chance to move to full-frame, I would still be shooting the 17-55 (and 10-22) on the 7D. I dumped those lenses to avoid the possibility I might accidently mount them on the 5D and damage the camera in the process. Both are great lenses but, individual preferences will lead to different choices.

I chose the Brick since I find myself using using 70MM @ 2.8 for smoother Bokeh since 55MM on cropped sensor does not give me the Bokeh I want and I plan to go FF. I have my 11-16 for UWA


70mm@2.8

I've tried a 24-70L and bought the 17-55.

24-70 is better built, doesnt seem sharper to me, it does have better bokeh is the only optical advantage.

for me 24 just wasnt wide enough.

RobDickinson wrote in post #11041303
I've tried a 24-70L and bought the 17-55.

24-70 is better built, doesnt seem sharper to me, it does have better bokeh is the only optical advantage.

for me 24 just wasnt wide enough.

I like the 17-55 (so sharp I was cutting myself when running Lightroom), but will move soon to a 24-70 as I'm migrating from crop to FF.

In my case, the 24-70 will be just barely wider on a FF than the 17-55 on my crop (in terms of equivalent field of view), so it's almost an equal swap, function-wise. I'm hoping the 24-70 will be as sharp as my 17-55!

The one I had a go of I would say the 70 end is better than the 17-55 , the wide end worse - for sharpness.

rh314 wrote in post #11050195
I like the 17-55 (so sharp I was cutting myself when running Lightroom), but will move soon to a 24-70 as I'm migrating from crop to FF.

In my case, the 24-70 will be just barely wider on a FF than the 17-55 on my crop (in terms of equivalent field of view), so it's almost an equal swap, function-wise. I'm hoping the 24-70 will be as sharp as my 17-55!

There is a very significant and noticeable difference in the AOV of 28mm (17mm APS-C) and 24mm...74 degree diag. AOV vs. 84 degree. Walking around cities of Europe, I found 28mm was frustratingly not wide enough and 24mm was a lens that would be mounted almost all the time.

I picked the 17-55 because it has focuses faster especially in low light and it's sharper.

Wilt wrote in post #11051415
There is a very significant and noticeable difference in the AOV of 28mm (17mm APS-C) and 24mm...74 degree diag. AOV vs. 84 degree. Walking around cities of Europe, I found 28mm was frustratingly not wide enough and 24mm was a lens that would be mounted almost all the time.

That's a good point; I haven't found that a problem yet, but then again I don't shoot a lot of landscapes... Good to keep in mind.

OK. I have now ordered a 7D and the brick, so its the 24-70 for me

I hope, and think, i'l be happy with it.

Thanx for all the replyes

Out of those two, I'd pick the 17-55mm.

I am in the same boat too, but I am actually going with the 17-40 for the weather sealing. Also, I may go FF in the future as well.

Got my 7D finally with the 17-55mm and I am loving it!!

Glad to hear you lovin the 17-55mm. Just make sure to do the extensive shooting tests to see if you got a good copy and "Err 01" free