Wow, I love this forum! I get so many great answers so quickly.
Many of you ask why did I not include the 17-55 EF-S 2.8 in my list? The answer - a combination of L-bias and future proofing. I own two L lenses, a 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) and 300 F4 IS. I love both lenses and feel that I have my telephoto needs covered for many years to come. My thinking is I should get an L lens for a walk about so I would enjoy the quality and durability at that range. I was also thinking I should buy a lens that will work on a full frame camera body. Since the original Rebel I have upgraded my camera body 3 times. At some point there will be a full frame camera that offers decent AF and burst mode for sports that will make me want to upgrade again.
As I think this through, the above thoughts seem a bit silly. I can always sell my EF-S lens along with my 7D if I decide to upgrade. I now plan to go to a local store and see the three top Canon candidates in person (17-55, 28-75, and 24-105). The local Calumet is running a special on rentals next weekend. I think I will rent the one that seems best and then make my final decision.
Oh, one other question. I am starting to play around with video on my 7D. Does this impact your recommendations at all? I am thinking that faster lenses and IS would come in handy when shooting video. So I would guess this would be another reason for the 17-55. Comments?
+1 for both the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake.
BTW, anyone take the plunge yet on the new Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro "Contemporary"? I might need a new walk-around for my 7D, since my wife won't give me back the 15-85 IS. It's glued to her T4i.
RobDickinson wrote:
Future proofing for full frame is a fallacy. Buy the 17-55 now, sell it again later when you move to FF.
I had so many stellar images form the 17-55 and 7d I wouldnt be without one on a crop.
^ This.
I'm in the process of transitioning to FF (for the ultra-high ISO capabilities) but am having a very hard time letting go of the 17-55, it's really that good.
If you value having a mid-range lens with a decent wide angle you either need to upgrade to FF and get any of the 24-70/105 lenses, or commit to your crop camera and get the 17-55 IS or the 15-85. If you're worried about losing money on the lens, buy used and sell it later at little to no loss.
ChipinSD wrote:
Oh, one other question. I am starting to play around with video on my 7D. Does this impact your recommendations at all? I am thinking that faster lenses and IS would come in handy when shooting video. So I would guess this would be another reason for the 17-55. Comments?
The 17-55 is by far the best video DSLR lens. It has the best IS, longest range, longest focus throw and best color and contrast. It is amazing! I am a video producer working on very large projects and we use the 17-55 all the time with national video campaigns. It even stands up well against the PL mount C300 we rent with an Angenieux Optimo 15-40 cine zoom (obvious the cine lens is better) http://www.angenieux.com/zoom-lenses/index.php?txt=5
I have since moved to full frame I still miss my 17-55 2.8IS. I may pick up a crop body again just to get trhis lens back.
ChipinSD wrote:
Many of you ask why did I not include the 17-55 EF-S 2.8 in my list? The answer - a combination of L-bias and future proofing.
If you buy one used you can sell it later for about the same price. It's like a free rental! I paid 33% less than the going retail rate when I bought my 17-55mm, and it was in mint condition. If I keep it that way I can sell it for the same amount if I switch to full frame.
L lenses are great, but if none exist that have a similar focal length range as 17-55, then they're not as effective. The 16-35 hits the wide end, but it's not very long, and the 24-70 (or 105) are not quite wide enough for my tastes in APS-C. The 17-55 is truly a great lens. Right up there in quality with a lot of L glass.
Having a good range for a walk-about lens is really important. If that 15-85mm EF-S lens was a fixed f/4 I'd buy it in a heartbeat! But at 3.5-5.6 it's a little slow on the long end. I'd give up one stop to have more range, but I can't give up two. The fixed f/2.8 on the 17-55 is just too good.
You hear a lot in forums that someone doesn't want this Efs lens because at some point in the future they may go FF while that's fine as an opinion it's sort of like not buying the merc amg s class because it doesn't have a tow package and you may one day buy a boat.
