Walk around lens for Eos 7d

[SQWIB]

I am torn between 2 lenses, Most of the time I always resort to my 28-135.
I was really leaning towards the 24-70 because then the more I thought about it with my current lenses I would have a better range for getting the 16-35

If I need a lens over 35 I have my 50mm prime, and my next would be 70 -300mm

1) Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens

2) Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens

I want this to replace my Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Image Stabilized

I hear some problems of some copies being soft from the 24-70, the 16-35 seems to get better reviews.

Neither have IS.

Any advice

[ceremus]

Unless you're planning on switching to a full-frame in the future, I would seriously consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. It is sharp wide-open at f/2.8, sharper than the 24-70L at all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, it has IS, and on a crop body you'll get true wide-angle at 17mm, which you really don't see at 24mm on a 1.6 crop.

If you plan on moving to a full frame in the future and want a standard-zoom walkaround lens I myself would probably go with the 24-70L f/2.8. If you don't need a fast zoom, the 24-105L f/4 IS is another excellent option. The other two ultrawide L zooms, the 17-40 and 16-35 are very nice to have in a kit as well, but I would prefer to have a standard zoom first before opting for an ultrawide. And again, that's if you're going with a full-frame set up, if you're sticking with APS-C cameras I would prefer the 17-55 as a standard zoom over one of the wideangle L zooms.

[SQWIB]

I was hoping to stick with L series lenses.

[inkista]

Any particular reason why you want Ls? Other than boasting rights? Are you earning money with your gear? Because most of the folks who say "you have to have Ls!" are mostly pros who can write them off on their taxes as a business expense. And the 17-55 is one of those lenses everyone pretty much agrees should be designated as an L, and only isn't because it's an EF-S.

I own three Ls. They're nice. But they're not necessarily the best fit for everybody in all things. Particularly if you aren't planning on going full frame within the next six months. The high-end EF-S lenses can often beat them in terms of sharpness, they're less expensive, they're lighter, smaller, DESIGNED FOR CROP, and don't require exotic glass elements for corner performance they don't need to have. And they'll often hold value quite well, so when the magic day that you move to full frame arrives, you can sell them and then get your EF Ls without having lost much money.

And in the meantime, you'll have the lenses appropriate for a crop body. One of the reasons you probably don't like your 28-135 is because it's designed for film/full-frame. The second is that it's an older optical design for less demanding film. All the EF-S lenses are designed for crop and sensors.

The 17-55/2.8 IS is the crop body analog to the 24-70/2.8L.
The 15-85 IS USM is the crop body analog to the 24-105/4L.
The 16-35 f/2.8 II is the full-frame analog to the EF-S 10-22 IS USM.

Personally, if you really want this lens as a walkaround for taking shots outside while you're walking around, I'd go for the EF-S 15-85 IS USM.

L's are big. They're heavy. They're conspicuous. And the image quality performance gain can be only marginal. They have better build quality and better usability features, but they can easily be overkill. Just because an L costs three times a gold-ringed USM lens does NOT mean it's three times better. And nearly everyone suffers some form of buyer's remorse when they get one because of the high high price tags.

Telephoto lens performance tends to whomp on wide angle glass. So don't expect the leap in performance you got with your 70-300L to be the same when you move to a 24-70L or 16-35 II (and in fact, my experience with reviews is the opposite of yours; I've seen far more favorable reviews on the 24-70 than I have the 16-35, and in fact most of the advice out there is go for the 17-40 f/4L USM instead of the 16-35 if you don't need f/2.8, because the performance will be as good (or better) at less than half the cost). You may also want to see this.

The EF 16-35 f/2.8L II and 17-40 f/4L USM are designed to be ultrawide on a full-frame, not a walkaround on a crop body.

[SQWIB]

The reason I was going to get an “L” lens is because I am misinformed, I understood them to be much better lenses than the standard lenses sold.
I do not shoot professionally and from what you guys are saying an “L” series lens isn’t always the best choice.

I need a general lens where I can leave on the camera and take shots at soccer games, different cub scouting events, some indoors. Volleyball games
Weddings, birthday parties

I took your advice and listed the lenses in order that I feel would be a good fit for me.
I have the 17-55 listed first because it’s a f/2.8 and may help me indoors a bit.

There is a very good review on the 17-55 at The Digital Picture.com


1) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens $1,179.00
Pearstone LHC-EW83J Dedicated Lens Hood (EW-83J) $19.99
Or
Canon EW-83J Lens Hood for Canon EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens


2) EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens $739.00


3) EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens $799.00


4) EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens $1,629.00

I appreciate you guys taking time to steer me in the right direction.
Thanks for pointing out the EF and EF-S
The 17-55 does have some really good reviews.
Should I go with a Canon lens hood or get a generic?

[ceremus]

The 17-55 is a good bread and butter zoom. It'll do portraits, events, weddings, it'll work decent in lower light, and with IS it's very hand holdable.

For soccer and other sports shooting you might need more on the telephoto end, might use your 70-300 on those when the shot requires it.

I got the Pearstone hood, it works fine. I can't compare it to the original as I can't bring myself to pay 2x as much for the Canon branded hunk of plastic.

[dlambert]

I think the rule of thumb as far as L lenses is that *ALL* L lenses are very good (there aren't any "dogs" in that lineup), but even within the L family, there are some that are known to be excellent, and some that are merely very good. Similarly, the EF and EF-S lines have some really good lenses and some that are pretty mediocre.

Canon doesn't put the "L" label on any EF-S lenses, but there are lenses in that lineup that range from cheap to good values to some that are really very good lenses. You'll never see Canon claim that they're as good as an L lens, and as far as I know, there aren't any EF-S lenses that make any claim as far as weather sealing (as L lenses do). I think it's important for Canon to maintain the "L" brand as the obvious choice if you want the very best, but some of the choices inkista mentioned are good performers.

I'd give some thought to the zoom range in these lenses and how you're going to use them. Given that you're shooting with a 28-135 right now, you should have a sense for whether you wish you had more range on the wide-angle side. If you spend most of your time on the wide end of your 28-135 and you wish you had a little more width yet, the 17-55 would be a great choice. If, however, you shoot around the middle of your zoom range, then I'm not sure I'd give up on the 24-70. Like the 17-55, the 2.8 aperture will be a big help indoors, and the zoom range might work better for you.

As far as soccer and volleyball, I'd think you'd want a little more reach than either of those lenses. I'd expect that your 70-300 would work pretty well for soccer, and maybe volleyball (certainly if it's outdoors). A 70-200 2.8 would be even better, and it would help with indoor volleyball. If you've shot any games already, check the focal lengths you used -- if you're shooting past 70mm, you're already past the point where you'd be using either the 17-55 or the 24-70 lenses.

My apologies if I've confused things even more, but it sounds to me like you've struck upon the great dilemma of a "walkaround" lens. There's a tremendous appeal in having one lens covering a wide focal length range, but it's really tough to find high-quality lenses that do this well. The best compromise for you is going to depend a lot on how you'll use it and how you weigh quality vs. the convenience of being ready to shoot (without changing lenses). I wouldn't discount that convenience factor, by the way -- Cub Scouts are notoriously difficult to pose, and they won't wait for you to change lenses!

[Elmo]

Well we know it is different strokes for different folks. I have 3 of the 4 lenses you mentioned. Likely 80 percent of my images are shot with the 17-55, About 10 percent are with the 70-300. 2-3 percent utilize the 28-135. My 28-70 is never used on my crop sensor. The 7-8 percent missing is with a 10-22.

But that is just me.

[DelCan]

Most of my pics are taken with a 24-70. It is the most versatile lens I own. It's also the oldest lens I have. That say's something for it because I normally don't keep things that long....

[brianxlt]

I have the 7D with the 17-40 F4 and the 24 -70 F2.8. These two lenses are with me for 80% of the time, only when I want to go light in gear weight I will leave them and take my 17-85 and 28-135 both do well but not as good as the two L's. on the 24-70 F2.8 you don't really need the IS, but the 17-40 would benefit if it had IS. I use it mostly for landscapes so tripod is always an option.