# 24-70 mm f/2.8



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm looking to buy a new lens for my 7D , it's time to move up from that kit lens (18-135mm) . I looked at the Canon and the Sigma version. They are pretty much the same from what info I have been able to find, just the price difference, being 400 dollars cheaper is the Sigma than the Canon. My question is, is it worth the extra money or is the Sigma a good lens for my 7D ?


----------



## acoll123 (Dec 13, 2010)

Keep in mind that with the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D, your 24-70 will actually be a 38-112. I wanted a wide angle so I got the 16-35 which is actually a 26-56. I also have the 24-105 with IS which is closer to the kit lens you had. The 24-105 makes a great walk-around lens and for me, the IS makes up for the slower aperture (4.0 vs 2.8) I know this doesn't answer you question but just in case you haven't considered other Canon alternatives, I think the 24-105 can be had for around $850 these days (I got mine as a white box).


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 13, 2010)

I know this is also probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think either is a very good match for your 7D. It of course depends on what you are looking for in a new lens, but if it is light gathering power, I would suggest the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS instead. Both lighter and cheaper than the EF 24-70/2.8L, but just as good, if not better, IQ. Also a more useful focal range, IMHO. 24mm is not really wide enough on APS-C (try it on your current lens). No weather sealing though, if that's a big deal for you.


----------



## JRSJ (Dec 13, 2010)

I've used both, and I have to say the 24-70 2.8L is the clear winner. Image quality is satisfactory on the Sigma, but I was surprised to see how much sharper the Canon is. Build quality is a no brainer either, and the Canon is the clear winner. (Though this is something to expect from any L series lens.) Sadly, the build/finish on Sigma feels downright cheap. The Canon also focuses faster, though I think the final point against the Sigma is that it takes a 82mm Filter vs 77mm for the Canon.

If you can afford the Canon, go for it. If not, may I suggest the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens. It retails less than the 24-70, and will work on your 7D much like the 24-70 would on FullFrame.

Only draw back is its build quality. It is still the highest build quality of the consumer lenses, and the optics are amazing. It consider it an L Series EF-S lens.


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 13, 2010)

I was just reading up on the 24-105mm f/4. I am brand new to photography and loving every min of the learning process. I was in the camera store yesterday , saw this guy with a 17-70mm f/2.8 Sigma, and was like thats a nice looking lens and its a 2.8. Everywhere I have read, they preach about getting good glass while you learn in place of the kit lens. That's why i'm here asking the more experience to make sure I make the right moves in my purchase of better glass .. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 13, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> I know this is also probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think either is a very good match for your 7D. It of course depends on what you are looking for in a new lens, but if it is light gathering power, I would suggest the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS instead. Both lighter and cheaper than the EF 24-70/2.8L, but just as good, if not better, IQ. Also a more useful focal range, IMHO. 24mm is not really wide enough on APS-C (try it on your current lens). No weather sealing though, if that's a big deal for you.


 This is what I needed to know so I can learn and get the best out of my 7D. Thank you...


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 13, 2010)

acoll123 said:


> Keep in mind that with the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D, your 24-70 will actually be a 38-112. I wanted a wide angle so I got the 16-35 which is actually a 26-56. I also have the 24-105 with IS which is closer to the kit lens you had. The 24-105 makes a great walk-around lens and for me, the IS makes up for the slower aperture (4.0 vs 2.8) I know this doesn't answer you question but just in case you haven't considered other Canon alternatives, I think the 24-105 can be had for around $850 these days (I got mine as a white box).


 Haven't seen it for 850 , I better keep looking...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2010)

How soon are you planning to get a FF camera? If the answer is 'not very' or 'someday' or even 'in a year or so' consider a lens more suited as a general purpose zoom on a crop body - the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Optically, both of those lenses are L-quality. The former has a wider aperture and is more suited to indoor/low light shooting and portraits; the latter has a wider zoom range, but is slower (will require flash indoors). 

However, if you require weather-sealing (the main reason I got the 24-105mm f/4L IS to supplement the 17-55mm), that's a consideration as only the L lenses are weather sealed.

The 'problem' with the 24-xx zooms is that 24mm on a 7D is equivalent to 38mm on FF, i.e. it's in the 'normal' range and not a wide angle lens. To me, a general purpose zoom covers wide angle to short telephoto.


----------



## acoll123 (Dec 13, 2010)

Kdhickey254 said:


> acoll123 said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that with the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D, your 24-70 will actually be a 38-112. I wanted a wide angle so I got the 16-35 which is actually a 26-56. I also have the 24-105 with IS which is closer to the kit lens you had. The 24-105 makes a great walk-around lens and for me, the IS makes up for the slower aperture (4.0 vs 2.8) I know this doesn't answer you question but just in case you haven't considered other Canon alternatives, I think the 24-105 can be had for around $850 these days (I got mine as a white box).
> ...



Dury's has a white box for $849.99 - I bought mine locally, so I paid tax, but no shipping.

https://www.durys.com/product/8794/Canon-Lens-24-105mm-f4-L-IS-split-from-Kit-White-Box/


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 14, 2010)

acoll123 said:


> Kdhickey254 said:
> 
> 
> > acoll123 said:
> ...


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 14, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> How soon are you planning to get a FF camera? If the answer is 'not very' or 'someday' or even 'in a year or so' consider a lens more suited as a general purpose zoom on a crop body - the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Optically, both of those lenses are L-quality. The former has a wider aperture and is more suited to indoor/low light shooting and portraits; the latter has a wider zoom range, but is slower (will require flash indoors).
> 
> However, if you require weather-sealing (the main reason I got the 24-105mm f/4L IS to supplement the 17-55mm), that's a consideration as only the L lenses are weather sealed.
> 
> The 'problem' with the 24-xx zooms is that 24mm on a 7D is equivalent to 38mm on FF, i.e. it's in the 'normal' range and not a wide angle lens. To me, a general purpose zoom covers wide angle to short telephoto.


 My goal is to upgrade to the full frame in a year or so, I want to get a better understanding of photography, my goal was to get my glass as I learn, and when I have a better understanding and a better collection of glass I can then truly focus on the body I want for the type of shooting I plan to do, which is sports and street/candid shots. I'm going to take a serious look at this 17-55mm f/2.8 , a lot of people have mentioned it.. I'm hoping for the 70-200mm f/2.8 II USM really soon ! Thanks for all the help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

Kdhickey254 said:


> My goal is to upgrade to the full frame in a year or so...I'm going to take a serious look at this 17-55mm f/2.8 , a lot of people have mentioned it....I'm hoping for the 70-200mm f/2.8 II USM really soon ! Thanks for all the help.



Personally, I think the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. I kept mine when I added a 5DII to my kit, since I still have the 7D and want a general purpose lens for when I go out shooting birds/wildlife with the 7D+100-400mm. 

I do believe that you should get the lenses you need/want today, regardless of plans to go FF at some point. Many who planned to do so are now on their second or third crop body!

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a wonderful lens, but FWIW I have found it a lot more useful on FF than on 1.6x. With the 7D, the focal length equivalent is 112-320mm - for me, that was too long indoors but not long enough outdoors (since I also had the 100-400mm). On a crop body, I found the 70-200 II most useful for outdoor event shooting (backyard parties, at the beach, etc.). Now, on the 5DII, it's a wonderful outdoor and indoor lens and sees a lot more use.


----------



## Kdhickey254 (Dec 15, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kdhickey254 said:
> 
> 
> > My goal is to upgrade to the full frame in a year or so...I'm going to take a serious look at this 17-55mm f/2.8 , a lot of people have mentioned it....I'm hoping for the 70-200mm f/2.8 II USM really soon ! Thanks for all the help.
> ...


Thank you , this helps out a lot.


----------

