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

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.

Welcome to the forum!

I cannot address the Canon 24-70mm options, but based upon using my 24-105L on 7D Mark II cameras, you will certainly want to add that 10-18mm, or a 10-22mm, for tight spaces both indoors and outdoors. I really like my EF-S 10-22mm lens; the 10-18mm option was still in the future, not even rumored yet, when I bought my 10-22mm. I really like being able to zoom to 22mm, and might feel limited if using a 10-18mm lens.

I cannot say how much better the 24-70mm lenses would be, than my 24-105L, for traveling. I would think being able to reach 105mm might be an acceptable trade-off.

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;

The "moving to full frame" thing comes up on here a lot.  My advice... don't buy a FF lens in a standard zoom (eg 24-70) until you actually are buying a full frame camera.  The EF-S lenses are often quite good (eg 17-55) and are a better general purpose focal length for your specific camera.

nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

Why?  what is the 17-55 not accomplishing that an "L" lens would?  The only difference between the 17-55 and an L lens is a little better build and the fact that it wouldn't be an EF-S lens.

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.

I have an outside the box recommendation.  It sounds like the f2.8 isn't super important to you.  Your last sentence makes me think you might like the 15-85mm usm.  It isn't an L lens, but it has an awesome range and would overlap the 70-200 a little bit.  Just a thought.

just don't do it.

ef-s 17-55 2.8 is usm is just  way better on crop.  I jumped the gun to ff and 24-70 and  do regret it often - it cost me a fortune but difference is negligible, minus IS

diness 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;

The "moving to full frame" thing comes up on here a lot. My advice... don't buy a FF lens in a standard zoom (eg 24-70) until you actually are buying a full frame camera. The EF-S lenses are often quite good (eg 17-55) and are a better general purpose focal length for your specific camera.

nothing wrong with the actual Efs17-55mm but it is time to move to an "L" type.

Why? what is the 17-55 not accomplishing that an "L" lens would? The only difference between the 17-55 and an L lens is a little better build and the fact that it wouldn't be an EF-S lens.

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.

I have an outside the box recommendation. It sounds like the f2.8 isn't super important to you. Your last sentence makes me think you might like the 15-85mm usm. It isn't an L lens, but it has an awesome range and would overlap the 70-200 a little bit. Just a thought.

I considered the 17-55 at one time but ended up with the 15-85 as an analysis of thousands of my shots showed significant usage of the 55-85 range while my need for a fast lens has not been so great (higher ISO on static targets works great for me).  I found the IQ of the 15-85 to be very good, such that I don't use the 18-135 STM than came with my 70D kit.  I have overlap with the 10-22mm at the low end and the 70-200 f/4L IS at the other.

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.

Having both FF and crop at home, as well as the 17-55 and the 24-70 L II, I would not suggest to move to the 24-70 on crop (~38-126) in your scenario. The 17-55 2.8 is great, both in IQ and range on crop (~27-88mm). If you find out that the gap between 55 and 70 is such an annoyance I'd second the suggestion from "dines" to look at the 15-85mm as an additional lens.

Otherwise the 24-70L will not give you a lot over the 17-55 on crop (compared to the money you spend), considering that you already have the latter.

I actually even recommend the 55-250mm over the 70-200 L for crop. It's easy to sell all that stuff later for acceptable loss when you are moving to FF, and then you will be getting the latest and greatest version(s) when you are ready to invest into FF.

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.

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.

The 17-55 F2.8 lense is the sharpest standard zoom with IS  for  canon APS-c available

the 24-70f4 is not as sharp on APS-c

The 24-70 f2.8Lii  is not really any sharper  on APS-c ( it will be on FF)

you could get the 55-250 is STM  it match your L lens at the mid to long end but is a little softer in the corners at the short end but is as cheap as chips...you gain 50mm at the long end as well and IS.....but you lose 1 F stop at the long end

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.)

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.

RobBobW wrote:

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.

Thanks to everybody, you have been very instructive and helpful, I have just returned from NY where I shoot over 2,000 photos with my 17-55mm and the 70-200 f/4, they are great. I visited B&H and did not change my lens as your recommendations. I just bought a 1.4X extender which worked well from One World building. Also purchased the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 still need to test it well. Cheers to all.