24-70 vs 17-55 on 7D

kaydawgy wrote in post #11156707
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

How do you test this?

Pretty much in a nutshell, "shoot the $@%! out of it." Shoot extensive shots at different zoom ranges, different shutter speeds, f stops, etc. If you do this for a couple days and dont see a Err 01 warning on the LCD then you got a solid copy. My first 17-55mm gave me the warning the first second I mounted it on my 550d. After getting past that, it kept popping up and random zoom ranges. Sent it back and found out it was a internal connection issue. Got a new copy a week later and so far its been flawless.

how good is the weather protection on the L series lens compared to the non-L like the 17-55?
I shoot a lot outdoors in dirty and wet conditions - high altitude and also high humidity environments. I have had a few L lenses in the past and never had any problems - the 17-55 looks like a great lens but not if the weather protection is seriously lacking.

thoughts?

Jmantyger wrote in post #10998631
I had both. I sold the brick. 17-55 is an amazing lens.

My experience too...

17-55, 50 1.4/1.8 70-200. problem solved.

Hey guys, this is my first post here, been an active forum member on some other sites but this one seems to be one of the better ones. I didn't see an "Introduce yourself thread" so may as well get into it here!

I just purchased the 17-55 yesterday and so far it looks good, I was thinking about the 24-70 but didn't want the brick without IS, was hoping Canon would announce a revamped 24-70 mkII version with IS and I would have waited for that with a view to going FF later on. I was thinking about the 15-85 but I needed a faster zoom for everyday use, kids, street, car shows etc. Next on my list is the EF 85 f1.8

duffbeer911 wrote in post #12205971
how good is the weather protection on the L series lens compared to the non-L like the 17-55?
I shoot a lot outdoors in dirty and wet conditions - high altitude and also high humidity environments. I have had a few L lenses in the past and never had any problems - the 17-55 looks like a great lens but not if the weather protection is seriously lacking.

thoughts?

17-55 has no official weathersealing. Which is one downside of it especialy if you inted to shoot outdoors in poor conditions, sans plastic bag...

Then again the 7D doesnt have proper weathersealing either (not 1D standards, and not IMO reliable enough to put it to the test significantly).

RobDickinson wrote in post #12473483
Then again the 7D doesnt have proper weathersealing either (not 1D standards, and not IMO reliable enough to put it to the test significantly).

http://canonfieldrevie​ws.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/

Yep I know, but there isnt any real seals in several vunerable places(shutter button etc), your trusting luck as much as anything if you get it wet.

canon wont make a 24-70 IS 2.8, otherwise no1 would buy the 17-55 anymore, and considering it costs around the same they'd be making a huge loss.

Ebwly wrote in post #12502690
canon wont make a 24-70 IS 2.8, otherwise no1 would buy the 17-55 anymore, and considering it costs around the same they'd be making a huge loss.

+1 ^^^

JMHO, I would also venture to say that while Canon has been sitting still in the lower FL ranges, Sigma has been cleaning their clocks this past year with the Sigma 17-50/f2.8 OS HSM for the crop body crowd not to mention the Crop & FF folks buying the Sig 50/f1.4 & 85/f1.4

If my memory is correct what has Canon released in the last 5 yrs in the lower walkaround range ? The 15-85 variable aperture lens ?

Regards,

Ebwly wrote in post #12502690
canon wont make a 24-70 IS 2.8, otherwise no1 would buy the 17-55 anymore, and considering it costs around the same they'd be making a huge loss.

1) A 24-70L IS won't cost the same, it will be nearly twice the cost of a 17-55
2) Not everyone wants the 24-70 focal length on a crop, nor the cost, so the 17-55 will still be in demand

People are crazy if they think a 24-70L f2.8 IS will cost the same as the 17-55...

In NZ its $1500 vs $2500 already, a new one will be $3k+ or twice the price.

And for me price wasnt the deciding factor, focal range was, 24mm for me isnt wide enough on crop.

^^ you're prices are messed up. Check BH. the prices in australia for the 17-55 is 1600, I got it 900 from online. The more expensive it is, naturally the larger the price difference.

You guys that are suggesting the 24-70 over a 17-55 on a 7D crack me up. Obviously, you have no clue.

A 17-55 and a 7D is as good as it gets for short zoom work, probably as good, maybe even better than a 24-70 on a 5d2. The AF system on the 7d and the 19 points give it a huge advantage. I would think that unless you have actually used the equipment, you probably should not give an opinion.

Again 17-55 on a 7D is as good as it gets for short zoom . The best set up would be a 1DS and a 24-70, which is a hell of a lot more money.