Upgrade 17-55 f/2.8 with 24-70 f/4 for 7D mkii?

Rexgig0 wrote:

RobBobW wrote:

RCouttolenc wrote:

I have a dilemma with the set of lens for the Canon 7D mark II which I have been using to travel around the world paired with a 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. However there is always a gap between 55mm and 70mm which I need to fill as often times is the needed focal range. One day I might move to full frame (2 years) for what I need to plan ahead; nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

My options are:

24-70mm f/4 IS because is sharp, light and has IS.

24-70mm f.2.8 no doubt is better, but should I need 2.8 for travel and the extra cost and weight?

24-105mm f4 IS, which I hear not as good as the 2 above and nothing to win.

I know I will loose the wide from 17 to 24mm which I could just add the Canon 10-18mm which is small, cheap and well rated, or any other similar.

Any thoughts, recommendations or options? I do not do weddings or portraits, I just enjoy my retirement traveling and getting great pictures from the world.

Keep the 17-55 f2.8. It is one of the best lenses I own. It is wonderfully sharp and you can't beat the light gathering f2.8 combined with IS. When I moved to FF, I really struggled to find a lens that worked as well for me. The 24-105 is close. The good folks at PhotoZone have described the 17-55 as an L for EF-S. I tried the 24-70 and was disappointed in the image quality after working with the 17-55. Keep your high quality EF-S lenses and worry about FF compatibility if and when you finally make the jump.

FWIW, i did some travelling in Europe a few years ago with an EF-S kit of two lenses: 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22 f3.5. A small light kit that did everything I really needed.

While I do not wish to retract my earlier reply, it was largely based on a lack of personal knowledge of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 lens. I knew, from the start of my serious DSLR shooting, in 2010, that I wanted to add a "full-frame" camera soon, so I largely avoided EF-S lenses. (I did add a 5D, by the end of 2011, though now having both 7D II and 5Ds R cameras, I continue to embrace APS-C, as well as the 35mm format.)

Because I planned adding a 5D-series camera, from the beginning, and added a weather-resistant 7D within months of starting DSLR shooting, I targeted the 17-40L and 16-35L options, ignoring the EF-S 17-55mm. (Because quite a few users asserted the EF-S 10-22mm had optics as good as an L lens, I did buy one, in order to shoot ultra-wide without having to wait until I acquired a 5D + a wide EF lens.)

Having now done some reading, on the EF-S 17-55mm lens, I would say it is probably better to keep using it, if you have one, unless an L lens' weather-resistance would be a significant factor. For that matter, I have shot, briefly, in heavy mist, and for very short periods in light rain, with my EF-S 10-22mm lens, without incident. (Obviously, when the big drops start falling, or for extended time in heavy mist, so that water droplets start consolidating, use a rain cover, or large umbrella, but that is a best practice, even with L lenses.)

Thanks!  I pulled out my 17-55 and can't wait to see how it works on my M1 this weekend, just for fun.  It will be kind of unbalanced, but no worse than sticking the M onto the back of my 300 f4 with a 2X teleconverter for wildlife.  It was like just carrying around the lens.

I love my 10-22 and it is noticeably sharper than the 17-40 f4 L.  If I need something wider than what the 24-105 can produce on my 5D, I just use the Samyang 14 f2.8.  Now that is a really sharp lens.

Never really had an issue with weather sealing being a big requirement.  Like you, I tend to use umbrellas, stash my rig inside my raincoat when not actively shooting and hiding under a large hat.