# Torn between 2 lenses



## McCardie09 (Dec 2, 2012)

I've had a Canon 7d for awhile now and I'm needing a new lens. So far here is what I have:

Tamron 18-270mm - I don't use very often but it's handy when I go on vacation
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L series lens - quite heavy
Canon 50mm f/1.4 - I really like this lens

I'm debating between getting either the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 or the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8. I do mostly outdoor portraits but I've got a 5 month baby girl that I take pictures of inside since it's getting cold out so I need something with a closer focal length.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 2, 2012)

McCardie09 said:


> I've had a Canon 7d for awhile now and I'm needing a new lens. So far here is what I have:
> 
> Tamron 18-270mm - I don't use very often but it's handy when I go on vacation
> Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L series lens - quite heavy
> ...



If you don't plan to go for FF, 17-55 f2.8 is a better choice. The next thing you know your baby girl will be running around the house soon, the AF on the new Tammy is slow and not sharp at f2.8


----------



## rpt (Dec 2, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> McCardie09 said:
> 
> 
> > I've had a Canon 7d for awhile now and I'm needing a new lens. So far here is what I have:
> ...


24 mm would end up being 38.4 mm on your 7D. I agree with Dylan - 17-55 f2.8.

Have you considered the 15-85? I know it is slower but you will get wider and longer shots from it. If I had stayed on crop (had they released the 7D2 when they released the 5D3...), I would have got the 15-85.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2012)

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, no question. IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, no question. IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.



+1, one of the biggest mistakes I made when buying glass for my APS-C bodies was not to get the 17-55. A close 2nd would be a Sigma 17-50. Sell the Tamron and get the 17-55.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, no question. IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.



+1 That's the best choice.


----------



## McCardie09 (Dec 2, 2012)

OK I think I will get the Canon instead of the Tamron. Thanks everyone for helping me out.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 4, 2012)

McCardie09 said:


> OK I think I will get the Canon instead of the Tamron. Thanks everyone for helping me out.



Good choice. I love mine on the 7D.


----------



## chicken (Dec 4, 2012)

I had my 7d till about a few months ago before I upgraded to a 5d3. From the time my son was born till he was about 18 months old when I sold the 7d my 24mm 1.4 mkii pretty much never left my camera. Its just an amazing lens on the 7d for indoor pictures with a baby. I had a Canon 17-55 since I got my 40d years ago but it was nothing like the 24mm. Its a whole different class of lens


----------



## pwp (Dec 4, 2012)

I'll add a vote for the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8is. You'll scarcely ever hear a bad word about this lens. If you buy carefully, you probably won't drop a dollar on it if you choose to change to FF at some time in the future. It's the sort of lens that will always be a very simple matter to on-sell. And in the meantime you'll have the perfect short/medium zoom for APS-C.

-PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2012)

rpt said:


> Have you considered the 15-85? I know it is slower but you will get wider and longer shots from it. If I had stayed on crop (had they released the 7D2 when they released the 5D3...), I would have got the 15-85.



Same for me - if I'd stay on crop, the lighter and newer 15-85 would be the lens for me - larger zoom range, great iq, excellent value. Look at your shots and determine if you really need constant f2.8 with the thin dof (you've got the 50/1.4 after all), a wider angle accepts lower shutter speeds.

Btw, I know it's an unusual advice in a high budget enthusiast forum apart from the general "just get the most expensive" no matter what :->


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Have you considered the 15-85? I know it is slower but you will get wider and longer shots from it. If I had stayed on crop (had they released the 7D2 when they released the 5D3...), I would have got the 15-85.
> ...



I think, most people here including me recommended the 17-55 from personal experience, rather than recommending the most expensive available. F/2.8 doesn't produce too thin a DoF at the wider angles, but is really useful for low-light shots especially with the limitations of a 7D sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think, most people here including me recommended the 17-55 from personal experience



I didn't wanted to state that the advice isn't valid, but often I find that the reasons given *why* lens xyz is "the best" or the "the one to get" are seldom given, so someone inquiring has little chance of deciding if it's "worth it" to him/her. You gave good reasons for the 17-55, other reasons favor other lenses (zoom range, size, weight, last not least price), so it's often a matter of preference esp. if the af and iq are decent on all possible choices. 

I've been shooting with an old 28-105/3.5-4.5 lens for the last decade, and I have to say that with the current 18mp sensor I don't think a little more light of f2.8 would make much of difference, it's not sufficient for available light shooting indoors with people anyway (except if downsizing a lot) - imho for full res you need either a faster prime or (currently) a ff sensor.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 4, 2012)

I souls go for the 17-55 for your camera, it looks nice, has fast af, has good re-sale value. But, sigma's new17-50 2.8 os macro does it all better. When I was in Italy, I ran into a shop that lets you rent lenses. I've been needing to replace my 18-55 and it was on sale, so I gave it a go. Really nice, really sharp even wide open, great os. But everyone knows sigma has sketchy os so make sure you get a good copy, but also, the rumors are the same for the canon 17-55's is. And I know the sigma has great af speed, (almost canon fast, but faster than the tamron 24-70. 
The tamron is slower but decent for what your doing. However, if you are going to sit right up in her face to play and take pictures, you'll only get som headshots with a bit of distortion. Both the sigma and the canon handle that. So the 17-50/55 focal range is best for you, you just have to weigh which lens will have a better chance of being a good copy.
(probably the sigma)


----------



## rpt (Dec 4, 2012)

Sounds very much like a song by Mary McGregor!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> You gave good reasons for the 17-55, other reasons favor other lenses (zoom range, size, weight, last not least price), so it's often a matter of preference esp. if the af and iq are decent on all possible choices.



Excellent point. In this case the OP is specifically asking for f/2.8, so 17-55 is the most obvious recommendation, but I have used and do recommend the 15-85 as well (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11355.msg202863#msg202863) in other situations. Like you said, the price and build quality are points in favor, while the IQ is comparable at smaller apertures.

I agree fast prime or FF is the way to go for low light, and I intend to go that route (in that order) over the next few months.


----------

