Walkabout Lens recommendation for 7D?

[Dale Buhanan]

I see that the majority of those who have replied to your question have recommended the 17-55/2.8 as a best choice walk around lens for you.

While I think the 17-55 is an excellent lens, I think it is a little too short to be really useful as an outdoor walkaround lens. It does its best indoors where not much, other than primes, can touch it.

Outdoors for walkabout, I think the 15-85 is a better choice. It goes both wider and longer and has comparable image quality. It also has slightly better IS. Outdoors in good light, there's not much that can match its versatility.

Oh, and for my 7D -- it is a 15-85.

I have owned two Digital Rebels (XT, and T1i), but finally pulled the trigger on the Canon 7D this past weekend. One of my first lens purchases with the XT was the Tamron EF-S lens (17-50mm, f2.8) and it has done a great job over the years. My only complaint is the high pitch AF sound, and that it often hunts to focus especially in low light. However, IQ is great and I get a real nice bokeh for most of my shots.

I was wondering if anyone else is in a similar situation with the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and/or what a similar quality alternative would be to address my issues. This would be a general purpose lens, and would also be used in low light / indoor situations as well as outdoor general settings. Basically what I'd want on my camera 80% of the time. On occasion I do landscape pictures and would also like to use this lens for that purpose.

For sports I am pretty set and using the Canon L 80-200 f2.8 and I would love to get the same IQ and color from my walkabout.

For portrait type work I am still using the Canon 50mm 1.8 and thinking about eventually upgrading to the f1.4.

This purchase will be in the future, since it'll take me a while to recover from my new 7D. Budget wise I'd like to be around $1000 or less.

Thanks in advance,
Greg

--
kind regards
Dale

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Love mine for landscape also for studio.

No IS, and only the equivalent of 39mm on the wide end. Not really the best choice considering the 17-55 IS f2.8 from Canon costs less.

--
T---
http://www.crosman.org
http://www.portfolio-shots.com

 

[Jerry-astro]

While I think the 17-55 is an excellent lens, I think it is a little too short to be really useful as an outdoor walkaround lens. It does its best indoors where not much, other than primes, can touch it.

That statement may be very accurate for your own style of photography, but not necessarily for others. I use the 17-55 as my walk around lens (which was preceded by a 17-85). I don't really miss the 55-85mm range because even when outdoors, most of what I shoot tends towards the wider end. That's very much a matter of personal preference and the sorts of subject matter that you photograph. The 15-85 is a very high quality and versatile lens, but the lack of constant f/2.8 across the range would also be an issue for me. That additional stop gives me access to thinner DOF when I need it... something that's not possible with a lens that goes no wider than f/4 and stops down more as you zoom.

It's great that Canon provides a choice of 2 excellent lenses in that same basic price range. Which one is better depends completely on your own personal needs and the importance of the features that differentiate the two.

 

[BryMills]

The lack of a constant aperture is the one real let down on the EF-S 15-85. Other than that, it's a great lens. I wouldn't worry about whether it's an EF-S, a good lens holds its value, so even if you do go full frame somewhere down the line you'll get a good payback on it.

 

[Jeff Peterman]

Maybe I have a bad copy, but to me the images from the 17-40L never looked very sharp - even without pixel peeping. I've read others say that it classifies as an L lens because of it's construction/water resistance NOT because of the image quality.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 

[Jeff Peterman]

This is always the dilemma. The 17-55 is a great lens, but 55mm is a little short for a walkaround. The 24-70 is a great lens, but 24 is a little long for a crop body as a walkaround lens. Plus, the 24-70 lacks IS.

Canon needs to come out with a 17-70L f2.8 IS.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 

[Dale Buhanan]

All certainly true, Jerry.

That statement may be very accurate for your own style of photography, but not necessarily for others. I use the 17-55 as my walk around lens (which was preceded by a 17-85). I don't really miss the 55-85mm range because even when outdoors, most of what I shoot tends towards the wider end. That's very much a matter of personal preference and the sorts of subject matter that you photograph. The 15-85 is a very high quality and versatile lens, but the lack of constant f/2.8 across the range would also be an issue for me. That additional stop gives me access to thinner DOF when I need it... something that's not possible with a lens that goes no wider than f/4 and stops down more as you zoom.

It's great that Canon provides a choice of 2 excellent lenses in that same basic price range. Which one is better depends completely on your own personal needs and the importance of the features that differentiate the two.

--
kind regards
Dale

 

[Wyville]

Maybe I have a bad copy, but to me the images from the 17-40L never looked very sharp - even without pixel peeping. I've read others say that it classifies as an L lens because of it's construction/water resistance NOT because of the image quality.

Well, it's still meant as an ultra wide angle lens on a full frame body, that could explain the difference with the 17-55. I don't know, and it doesn't matter that much to me because the construction is what matters to me the most. The 17-55 feels too plasticy to me, and I find myself leaving the camera at home way too often because of it.

 

[dskl]

a 17-70L f2.8 IS would be amazing...
btw- i use 24-70 on my canon 7D and i love it

 

[Jerry-astro]

I've owned both lenses and would NEVER go back to the 17-40L. I think you'll be somewhat disappointed. The build quality of the 17-55 is pretty decent (never been an issue for me) and the IQ is definitely superior to the 17-40L. I experienced periodic CA issues on the L lens which never show themselves on the 17-55. I found contrast and color to be quite comparable... possibly even a tad better on the 17-55.

If you're planning to move to FF soon, I can see a move like this. Otherwise, I think you'll be tossing money away for a lens that offers no real advantages and some real disadvantages.

Best of luck either way.

Maybe I have a bad copy, but to me the images from the 17-40L never looked very sharp - even without pixel peeping. I've read others say that it classifies as an L lens because of it's construction/water resistance NOT because of the image quality.

Well, it's still meant as an ultra wide angle lens on a full frame body, that could explain the difference with the 17-55. I don't know, and it doesn't matter that much to me because the construction is what matters to me the most. The 17-55 feels too plasticy to me, and I find myself leaving the camera at home way too often because of it.

 

[KariP]

If you walk more in a city - or travel much - a 15-85Efs with IS is the lens

If it is more like open spaces, countryside, seaside - a 24-105IS L is a good alternative.

I started with a 17-85 - now i am using 10-22Efs + 24-105L IS when i travel... 10-22 for special places:
http://web.me.com/karipenkkila/Minun_kuvani/Rome_2010.html

http://web.me.com/karipenkkila/Minun_kuvani/The_Night_of_the_Arts.html

You need an IS lens !

--
Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, 40D since 2007, and now 7D !
60.21 N 24.86 E

 

[Jeff Peterman]

more like open spaces, countryside, seaside - a 24-105IS L is a good alternative

But open spaces often work best with a wide angle lens - which the 24-105 isn't on a crop body. Plus, the 24-105 isn't as good in low light or for subject isolation: f4 is much slower than f2.8.

The 24-105 is a great lens on a full frame body, but not so good on a crop body.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 

[dheijl]

The 17-40 is my walk-about lens on the 7D. The 24-105 is also nice but frequently not wide enough.

If you don't need weather sealing and don't consider full frame in the near future the 17-55 EFS would be a better (but heavier) choice.

danny

 

[steve88]

It gives you an effective focal length of 46mm on the 7D, is fast, and very sharp (and well under $1K). However, you lose the convenience of the zoom factor.

Some samples:

 

[ultimitsu]

One other point- I would also like to get an EF lens, as I may eventually upgrade to a FF camera.

I was thinking about the new Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L though it's not as open and has a smaller range, but the price is definitely not bad.

a subpar lens. lack IS, lack F2.8 mediocre performance, 15-85 cost the same and is much better.

als you mentioned portrait using 50 f1.4 in the future, my advice is dont both, that lens is also mediocre. poor resolution at F1.4, poor af consistency, and 7D loses 40% light on F1.4 anyway.

85 F1.8 or 100 F2 are a more useful lenses, and not redundant after you got 17-55 F2.8

 

[bhollis]

+1 on the 15-85.

 

[Wyville]

I've owned both lenses and would NEVER go back to the 17-40L. I think you'll be somewhat disappointed. The build quality of the 17-55 is pretty decent (never been an issue for me) and the IQ is definitely superior to the 17-40L. I experienced periodic CA issues on the L lens which never show themselves on the 17-55. I found contrast and color to be quite comparable... possibly even a tad better on the 17-55.

If you're planning to move to FF soon, I can see a move like this. Otherwise, I think you'll be tossing money away for a lens that offers no real advantages and some real disadvantages.

Best of luck either way.

The move has less to do with image quality and more with build quality and full frame capability. I'm looking to build up a set of three zoom lenses and maybe two or three primes that should last for years to come, and should be great to take along when traveling.

The idea for now is 17-40L for landscapes, 24-70L for general use, 70-300L or 100-400L for tele, and maybe the 85/1.8 and 135/2L. That set of lenses is useful on a crop body as well as on full frame. Most importantly, the three zooms are built to last.

The weakest lens is probably the 17-40L, so I might keep my 17-55 for now, but the downside is that I don't like the plastic feel of it and tend to leave it at home because of that. In my opinion, in terms of build quality it doesn't match well with the 7D. (I gave away my Nikon D80 after a year because I couldn't live with the plastic feel of it.)

It's a personal preference, but build quality is essential for me. What use is a lens that sits in a bag at home while I'm out traveling through the Canadian Rockies?

 

[Jeff Peterman]

I don't like the plastic feel of [the 17-55] and tend to leave it at home because of that.

This is my most-used lens, and the one that spends the most time on my 7D. My normal kit consists of the 7D, 10-22 EF-S, 17-55 f2.8 EF-S, and 70-200 f2.8L IS. This combination works well. As needed, I may throw in the 100mm macro, one or more flash/strobe modules, and other odd items. If I'm shooting an event, I'll have the 7D and a 40D, with the 17-55 on one body and the 70-200 on the other, changing one or the other with the 10-22 as needed. On rare occasions, I'll take the 50mm f1.8 MK1 or the 85 mm f1.8, but in practice I find I don't use them much - in the end I keep them, and the 17-40L, just in case I buy a full frame body.

If I need to travel light, I'll take just the 7D and the 17-55. If I think I may need more reach, don't want to carry the 70-200, and know the light will be good, I'll take along my 55-250 EF-S too.

The fact is that all of these lenses have good build quality - they've stood up to a lot of use/abuse without problems. (Note that I have the MK1 50mm not the MK2, as the latter truly does have poor build quality, but what can you expect for under $100.)

I think you're confusing build quality with light weight. Plastic does not have to mean cheap (some plastics are very expensive) or week (some plastics are very strong and can absorb forces to protect the inner components, where metal would transmit the shock).
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 

[Y0GI]

I don't like the plastic feel of [the 17-55] and tend to leave it at home because of that.

This is my most-used lens, and the one that spends the most time on my 7D. My normal kit consists of the 7D, 10-22 EF-S, 17-55 f2.8 EF-S, and 70-200 f2.8L IS. This combination works well. As needed, I may throw in the 100mm macro, one or more flash/strobe modules, and other odd items. If I'm shooting an event, I'll have the 7D and a 40D, with the 17-55 on one body and the 70-200 on the other, changing one or the other with the 10-22 as needed. On rare occasions, I'll take the 50mm f1.8 MK1 or the 85 mm f1.8, but in practice I find I don't use them much - in the end I keep them, and the 17-40L, just in case I buy a full frame body.

If I need to travel light, I'll take just the 7D and the 17-55. If I think I may need more reach, don't want to carry the 70-200, and know the light will be good, I'll take along my 55-250 EF-S too.

The fact is that all of these lenses have good build quality - they've stood up to a lot of use/abuse without problems. (Note that I have the MK1 50mm not the MK2, as the latter truly does have poor build quality, but what can you expect for under $100.)

I think you're confusing build quality with light weight. Plastic does not have to mean cheap (some plastics are very expensive) or week (some plastics are very strong and can absorb forces to protect the inner components, where metal would transmit the shock).
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

I agree with Jeff. I feel that the 17-55 is very substantial and I use it on my 7D 90% of the time. I have no problems with the quality of this lens whatsoever! And this is after 2.5 years of hard use!
--
Yogi

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!

See the 'Gear List' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.

Check out WilbaW's beginner FAQs at - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ

 

[Jerry-astro]

I might keep my 17-55 for now, but the downside is that I don't like the plastic feel of it and tend to leave it at home because of that. In my opinion, in terms of build quality it doesn't match well with the 7D. (I gave away my Nikon D80 after a year because I couldn't live with the plastic feel of it.)

I think your build quality issues are simply your own perception, not reality. The lens may be made out of plastic (as many are, including at least one "L" lens -- the 100L Macro), but the robustness and quality of that lens is excellent. I take pretty good care of my equipment ( i.e. don't abuse it), but that lens is on my camera the vast majority of the time and I've owned it for years. It's still tight as a drum.

As I said, swapping out a clearly superior lens and giving up reach, IQ, IS, etc. makes zero sense, even if you plan to move to FF. When you do, you'll still be able to sell that 17-55 for a good portion of its value at that time rather than simply giving it up now.

If you still feel as if you're carrying a crappy lens around... we'll no one here can help you get past that. But understand, it's strictly your own issue and not a reflection of reality.