# 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?



## jimc8p (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi 

I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM 

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...

I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM. Below are a couple of links to my stuff for reference.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/Portrait-Photography/2075548
https://www.behance.net/gallery/Photography/775988

Any advice greatly appreciated!


----Sorry, moved this from the Rumors forum


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 16, 2014)

the 15-85 is stellar and well worth a look too it blows the doors off the 17-85
and is a better fit on a crop over the 24-105

i would also got the new sigma 18-35 f1.8 over the 17-55 f2.8 if you are looking for something fast


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2014)

24-105 is normal-to-tele on APS-C, no wide angle. It doesn't really fit the purpose of a walkaround lens, IMO (but it's great on FF). I think the 17-55 is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C bodies. If you want to trade aperture for focal length, the 15-85 is a good choice (optically better than the 17-85).


----------



## K13X5C (Jan 16, 2014)

For me I prefer to spend my dollars on IQ and walk a few steps to get the framing I want. I have the 17-55 and for a crop body I think it's the best you can get for a normal zoom, the FF equivalent is 27-88. I think it's better than the 17-40 L on a crop, which I tried and didn't like for several reasons. I had both at the same time for awhile and it wasn't a tough decision, for me, to sell the 17-40. The f/2.8 is very helpful on a crop, particularly on an older body like the 7D that doesn't have great high ISO capabilities. Indoors and late in the day it makes an appreciable difference.

The 24-105 is 38-168 on FF and it's an f/4. For me the f/4 is a no go, and the 38mm at the wide end doesn't work for me either. Although I'd love the long end of the 24-105. But, I have the 70-200 f/4 IS L to cover that.

If you do go with the 24-105 the EF-S 10-22 might complement it nicely, but the f/3.5-4.5 and no IS isn't much help in low light on a 7D. I have the 10-22 and it does a nice job for the wider shots outdoors. It's about as good or better than anything else in that focal range on a crop.

What are you using for the long end of your range. A 70-200 ?

Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient. So there's your future proofing. Buy a good used copy at a fair price (I know, easier said than done) and your set to try it out for little or nothing. Then again if you can find a used 24-105 cheap (that is an easier proposition these days) you can do the same thing. And there are like new, or brand new, 24-105 kit lenses being sold for $700-$800 in these parts, almost everyday it seems. Someone sold one for $640 recently, desperate I suppose. But I'm not so sure the 24-105 will hold it's current value. Maybe, maybe not.

Good luck choosing.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 16, 2014)

My personal favourite is the 15-85mm (I love that focal length / flexibility). I used to have the Canon 28-135mm (sort of similar to the 24-105mm L in some ways, though not the same quality as the L. My copy of the 28-135mm was a good one, had decent sharpness & contrast wide open, 1 stop down was good (but not as good as the 15-85mm).

I have used the 17-55mm f/2.8 and found it a great lens too, but I preferred the 15-85mm, probably because when I want 'fast glass' - I want faster than f/2.8 anyway... so that's when I go for primes. So the 15-85mm - which I mainly use outdoors is great.

The 17-85mm really suffered at wide angle (soft, distortions and higher CA). 

I like your portfolios of work.. .so great, creative shots in there... you have a good eye for photos. Some of the more 'arty' post processing is skillful, but it's not my style. Thanks for sharing. I can see how you have used the 50mm well. I'm waiting for a new, stellar 50mm to come out from Canon!

PJ


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2014)

K13X5C said:


> Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient.



Four years ago, they were selling for around $1000 new. Not long ago, Canon dropped the price to $829, and during the last rebates it sold for $779. Good for people wanting to buy one new, bad news for people who paid $1K and want to sell it now (I sold mine before the price drop, fortunately). 

Maybe you could sell it for $700 or more...not to me, but P.T. Barnum had a point.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



Given the two lenses in your post, and references to low light shooting and shallow depth of field also in your post, the only one to choose is the 17-55.


----------



## 2n10 (Jan 16, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



I agree the 17-55 is the way to go based on your post.


----------



## 2n10 (Jan 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> K13X5C said:
> 
> 
> > Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient.
> ...



I am glad I am still enjoying the services of the lens since I did buy it at $1K. Thankfully I don't worry about resale prices on my lenses since the value received from use far out weighs any loss in value. I guess I would consider it a good rental rate if I did sell.


----------



## Viper28 (Jan 16, 2014)

I have the 24-105L/4 as the general carry round on my 7D and its a great alround lens, it is however not as wide as I'd like, the 17-55 would have been better in that respect. The issue however was I did not want to buy a EFs lens in case I go for a FF in the near future.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2014)

Buy the 17-55 now and enjoy it. Sell it later, call the difference a rental.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 16, 2014)

@ OP

As an owner both these lenses in the past, I would take 17-55 over 24-105 anytimes. The 17-55 is one of the best lenses for crop in Canon lineup. The 17-55 reminds me of my current Canon 24-70 f2.8 II.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2014)

+3, 4, or whatever we're up to on the 17-55.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 16, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> My personal favourite is the 15-85mm (I love that focal length / flexibility). I used to have the Canon 28-135mm (sort of similar to the 24-105mm L in some ways, though not the same quality as the L. My copy of the 28-135mm was a good one, had decent sharpness & contrast wide open, 1 stop down was good (but not as good as the 15-85mm).
> 
> I have used the 17-55mm f/2.8 and found it a great lens too, but I preferred the 15-85mm, probably because when I want 'fast glass' - I want faster than f/2.8 anyway... so that's when I go for primes. So the 15-85mm - which I mainly use outdoors is great.
> 
> PJ



+1 While agree that the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is a terrific lens, f/2.8 (equivalent to f/4.5 on a full format body) really isn't that fast on a crop body and may not give you the shallow DOF you are looking for in your portraits. You really need f/2.0 or faster, and for that you need to go with primes or the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. So, I would probably go with PJ's suggestion of the EF-S 15-85 and some fast primes like the EF 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 to handle your shallow DOF shots. The focal range of the 15-85 is really nice (I especially like 15mm over 17mm on the wide end) and the aperture is fine for outdoor shooting or indoors with flash.


----------



## eLroberto (Jan 16, 2014)

I used the 24-105 for a long time on my 7D. It takes time to feel comfortable with 24mm on a crop DSLR, but its a great lens if you use it outdoors, especially cause its sealed. For walk around I mostly use the Sigma 18-35 at the moment. The IQ of this lens is really great, even at f/1.8! But at the long end its a bit to short quite often. But all in all I would recommend you the 24-105 if you feel fine with 24mm on a crop. 

Kind regards,
Robert


----------



## mkabi (Jan 16, 2014)

eLroberto said:


> I used the 24-105 for a long time on my 7D. It takes time to feel comfortable with 24mm on a crop DSLR, but its a great lens if you use it outdoors, especially cause its sealed. For walk around I mostly use the Sigma 18-35 at the moment. The IQ of this lens is really great, even at f/1.8! But at the long end its a bit to short quite often. But all in all I would recommend you the 24-105 if you feel fine with 24mm on a crop.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Robert



I feel the same, but I believe that everyone should figure out what end of the spectrum you use on the zoom.
I mean, if you relatively stay at 17mm, sometimes go to 35mm, rarely go to 50mm and once in a blue moon hit all the way to 85mm. Then I would suspect that you know what lens to get; yet again, that's something that you need to figure out for yourself.

If you do go for the Sigma 18-35mm, remember you are trading it up for reach, but really if you can get close to the subject... then get close to the subject!


----------



## Zv (Jan 16, 2014)

I've used both on a 7D and I reckon the 17-55 is the better choice. The extra stop is essential on the 7D. Also the 17-55 is tack sharp at f/4 whereas the 24-105 is a little soft. On crop f/2.8 is good for portraits, you get some shallow dof with a little margin for error. F/4 is nice too when I want more detail. 

The only adv for the 24-105 is reach. However, I would opt for a cheap tele like the 85 1.8 as it would compliment the 17-55. Together you'd cover the portrait range (50mm - 135mm) quite nicely. 

To be honest am not a big fan of the 24-105, it hasn't impressed me after selling my 17-55 for it. Seems mushy at the ends and f/4 is not that great. Very limiting on a 7D when you have to stop down to 5.6 or 8. 35-70mm is good though (those are good portrait lengths on crop too funnily enough).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 16, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.



May I suggest the Sigma 30 mm A 8)


----------



## alexturton (Jan 16, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> jimc8p said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.
> ...



+1


----------



## unfocused (Jan 16, 2014)

With the parameters you've listed, I think this is a tough choice.

For years I used the 15-85mm zoom as my "go to" lens on the 7D. Coupled with the 70-300 "L" they make a near perfect travel kit. I take other lenses with me, but they often stay in the bag. These two pretty much cover any situation.

Now, with the 5DIII it's the 24-105 and the 70-300 (although I miss the reach of the 7D, but still adapting)

Anyway, if you don't shoot at the wide end and prefer the long end of the 17-85, then I wouldn't recommend the 17-55. It's just too short. But, on the other hand, the 24-105 sacrifices anything close to wide angle if you use it on a 7D, so if you ever do want a wide angle, you can't have it with the 24-105. 

The difference is only one stop, so I'm not sure the f2.8 offers enough of an advantage to offset the disadvantages of the short focal range.

Personally, I wouldn't sell the 50 f1.8 unless you absolutely never use it. It's always going to be faster than a zoom and for what you'll have to sell it for, it's hardly worth it.

I don't know if you have the option to rent lenses, but you might want to consider that to see what works best and if the advantages justify the expense in your mind. 

A few crazy ideas just to stir things up a bit:

The 55-250 EF-S is one of the best bargain lenses available. It's very sharp and has IS. If you really do like shooting at the long end, it's a very cheap option.

For portraits, either the 100mm "L" macro or the 85 1.8 are good options. The 85 1.8 is a great bargain as well and gives you some speed for low light. The 100 "L" macro is a bit pricier but extremely sharp and it has IS and is a macro to boot. I've used both with a 7D and they make very nice, flattering portrait lenses that enable you to separate out the subject from the background. 

I strongly disagree with those who suggest you can just get a shorter lens and move in closer. It just doesn't have the same look. If you like the look that a longer lens gives you, you have to use a longer lens. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Jim K (Jan 16, 2014)

From what you say I'd think the 17-55 f/2.8 would be the way to go. It will give you more quality than your present kit lens and the f/2.8 will also be nice. It is a quality lens. My "all around lens" on my 7D is the 15-85 which works out to a 24-136 on a FF but then I shoot outdoors and want the wider view. Wanted the 50 f/1.4 but don't do any available light work so decided to save the money.

I don't think the 24-105 f/4L would give you as much for your type work. If you are thinking that you would have the FF lens if you went FF in three or four years you may find that the 5D IV, or whatever it is, comes with a new kit lens that is better than the present 24-105 at a very good price.

I've had a 24-105 for almost two years (kit with the 5D3) and have never had it in my 7Ds. They get the 15-85, the 70-200 f/4L IS and beyond. I don't think they have gotten the 10-22 either since I now use the 17-40 on the 5D3 (landscapes). Good luck with your decision.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 16, 2014)

You all are probably more experienced than I am. But it seems to me that using a prime lens with the 7D might be a good option. The 7D is an action oriented camera and you want quick focus. So if you can select a prime that is reasonably close to what you want then you have removed one variation and you can achieve focus faster. Then too, because you have a prime lens then you will get really sharp photos that can be cropped down to the piece that you want and still look great. Just a thought.


----------



## K13X5C (Jan 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> K13X5C said:
> 
> 
> > Another factor in favor of the 17-55, in my opinion, is that the 17-55 is well regarded and the price has held up pretty well on the used market. I bought mine used for $700 about four years ago and I could sell it for that right now quite easily, and make a little if I was patient.
> ...



Yeah, neuro you are right, I forgot about the price drop. Thanks for catching that. I am glad I bought mine at $700, although it is a sweet deal at $830 or $780, too.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2014)

I have a 17-55... it is a fine lens and I love it... but lately I have been trying to get good pictures of small birds, and for that, my go-to lens is a 70-200F4. The rest of the time it's the 17-55..... unless I am hiking and then the go-to lens becomes the 18-200...


----------



## gshocked (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi,

I used the 24-105 for a while on a 7D and found it a great combo then one day put a EFS 18-135 back on and it honestly missed the wider angles. Buying a "L" lens has its benefits but if your not going to full frame any time soon, I'm not sure it's worth it.

I regards to your choices are the EFS 17-55 and the EF 24-104 the only lenses your considering?

If cost is an issues have you considered these:

the revised Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS "Contemporary" Lens is a nice. It's an EFS only lens and it has a little more reach than the Canon 17-55. 
The EFS 18-135 STM lens is also very handy. I do some video on the side I've the STM lens to be very quite and seems reasonably fast to focus.

Just some food for thought.


----------



## MYB (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi,
I'm not experienced for advice something but i've bought 70D with Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. It's good enough imo.


----------



## DaveMiko (Jan 16, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



For a crop-sensor the 17-55 makes more sense than the 24-105. I had a 7D and I found that the 24-105 wasn't wide enough (but still very useful in most situations). The 17-55, however, has been produced specifically for crop-sensor cameras, so you might consider that for your 7D.


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 16, 2014)

17-55 f2.8IS is the best lens for crop other than the sigma 18-35 f1.8. Pair the 17-55 with a 70-200 f4IS or 70-200 f2.8II and your set.


----------



## alexturton (Jan 16, 2014)

Are you planning on going full frame? If not, the 17-55 is a great choice; I use one with my 60d


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 16, 2014)

Before going full frame, I used a 70-200 f2.8L II on the 7D and the 17-55 f2.8 on the 60D. I highly recommend both lenses. In my case, with sports and events, the 70-200 was my main lens. On the 5D3, it's still my main lens.

But, for a "normal" zoom on crop, the 17-55 can't be beat. The f2.8 is more important to me than the extra reach of 105mm on the f4.0 zoom.

If full frame is just around the corner, then look into a 5D3/24-105 or a 6D/24-105 kit. If not, I suspect that you will get more out of your 7D with the 17-55, than the 24-105.


----------



## Skatol (Jan 17, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



Based on your statements (in bold) I would recommend the 24-105 IF you plan on going full frame and want the extra reach. I had the 17-55 but later sold it for future plans of moving to FF ($200 rental fee for two years). I use the 24-105 for my walk around lens, previously on the 7D and now on the 5DIII. Since you have the 50mm I think this covers your shallow DOF needs. After checking your photos I think you will be quite satisfied with the 24-105. If a zoom is not required you may want to check out the 100L IS. This would give you the reach and DOF.


----------



## jimc8p (Jan 19, 2014)

Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2). 

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people


----------



## Zv (Jan 19, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).
> 
> I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?
> 
> ...



When I bought my 17-55 I noticed I hardly touched my 50 1.8 anymore. The reason being that the 50 was only really got good around f/2.8 and the 17-55 covered that nicely. I've never owned the 1.4 but from what I hear it's good around f2. Might be worth it just to wait for the Sigma and possibly the Canon update before getting the 50 1.4, and in the meantime use the f1.8. I always ended up choosing f/2.8 with IS over the (soft) f1.8 with no IS but that's just my shooting pref, maybe you're different.

I highly recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS, the image quality is really amazing. Only issue with this on crop is you're limited slightly by the f/4 aperture. If you shoot indoors it can be an issue as you'll end up cranking up the ISO to 3200 and on a 7D things start looking real noisy. 

An alternative might be the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).
> 
> I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?
> 
> ...


My walk around setup is the 17-55 and the 70-200F4IS plus a 1.4X teleconverter..... it covers a huge range with quality and is quite portable... I'm heading out the door with that in a few minutes....

When I am travelling heavier, there is a flash, a 10-20, a 100L, and a 30F1.4 added into the kit for more versatility.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 19, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).
> 
> I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?
> 
> ...



What's blatantly missing is IS in your 70-200, I'm not going to sum up all of the plusses, but I would seriously consider the IS model if I were you, also because it is optically superior to the non-IS model.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 19, 2014)

If you have 1000$ to spend, you can get a 17-55 or a 24-105 and use them for your 7d.

Or you could sell the 7d and buy a 6d & 24-105 kit for more less the same price. 

Only advantages of your 7d are speed and better AF. Your current 17-85 is f5.6 at the long end, and the new lens is f4.0. A 6d gives you about 1.5 stops of low light capability and shallow depth of field, and the lens gives you another one at the long end. 

if you want to change your 50 1.8 you can replace it by a 85 1.8 for about the same Price, and this one is said to be really good (i dont own it).


----------



## Zv (Jan 19, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> If you have 1000$ to spend, you can get a 17-55 or a 24-105 and use them for your 7d.
> 
> Or you could sell the 7d and buy a 6d & 24-105 kit for more less the same price.
> 
> ...



The 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 are most certainly NOT the same price!!


----------



## surapon (Jan 19, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



Dear friend jimc8p.
Yes, You use 7D now, But in the near future --You will buy another FF camera when the price is right. YES, THAT I RECOMMEND you to buy only EF Lens, Not Buy EF-S Lens. EF Lenses are for both Small sensor Camera and Full Frame Camera----BUT EF-S Lens can use only Small sensor cameras, Not FF cameras because the back of Lens too long and can hit the movable Mirror of FF Camera. Yes, Canon Lenses, Sigma Lenses and Tamron Lenses are great Lenses too, Depend on the money that you will spend. No, I will not tell you what Lens that Best for youy, Because all Photographers like us have very difference styles of photography that we love.
You can go to local Camera shop and test RUN of some Lenses that you Needs before you buy.
Good Luck.
Surapon


----------



## bholliman (Jan 19, 2014)

jimc8p said:


> Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).
> 
> I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?
> 
> ...



I think either of these combinations will work very well. As others have pointed out IS is really useful for longer focal lengths, I suggest getting the EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS if you can afford it. Optically, the non-IS is excellent, but I think IS is worth the difference in price unless you use a tripod most of the time.

I use my 50 1.4 at f/1.8 and up, so I think it does have a place for shallow DOF photography. The 17-55 is great, but f/2.8 isn't that wide on a crop body, I think you will need a lens with better shallow DOF capability if you skip the prime.


----------



## sleepy1974 (Oct 29, 2015)

My 17-85mm recently started acting up (err code 01) and I am considering sending it to Canon for repair. But between shipping and repair costs, the whole thing will end up costing me close to $200. Is it worth it, or should I use this opportunity to upgrade my lens? I'm debating between the 24-105 f4 or the 15-85mm.

Fyi, I will mainly use this as a travel lens. I almost always use Canon's 35mm prime (90% or more of the time). But for travel and vacations, I find I prefer the utility of zoom lenses.

Thanks everyone.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 29, 2015)

sleepy1974 said:


> My 17-85mm recently started acting up (err code 01) and I am considering sending it to Canon for repair. But between shipping and repair costs, the whole thing will end up costing me close to $200. Is it worth it, or should I use this opportunity to upgrade my lens? I'm debating between the 24-105 f4 or the 15-85mm.
> 
> Fyi, I will mainly use this as a travel lens. I almost always use Canon's 35mm prime (90% or more of the time). But for travel and vacations, I find I prefer the utility of zoom lenses.
> 
> Thanks everyone.


Canon 15-85mm is a natural replacement for your lens. You will get as a bonus, maximum aperture F3.5, better sharpness and better contrast. I do not think very versatile 24-105mm on an APS-C body.


----------



## sleepy1974 (Oct 29, 2015)

Thanks AJ. So should I not bother with fixing the 17-85mm and use the money (~$200) to upgrade to a better lens?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 29, 2015)

jimc8p said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
> 
> ...



I picked up a tamron 16-300 the other day mainly for video use but it seems to have pretty good iq considering its range. I would not hesitate to use this where iq is not of highest priority, nor where you are shooting in poor light. However for an all around lens thats weather sealed its a pretty decent value. You might also want to consider a fast prime to go with it for those not so ideal conditions.


----------

