# EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D



## SJ (Dec 11, 2012)

Hi everybody,

I have 7D + EF-S 10-22mm & i plan to buy the new EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM, but im not sure this lens can give the top IQ on crop sensor like 7D.

Anybody 7D owner have this lens? maybe you can share your photo/review about this lens.

Thanks.


----------



## rj79in (Dec 11, 2012)

Expect the IQ to be very good. The only thing you will lose on the 7D is the high ISO performance and the deeper DOF for framing similar to the FF. 

Also, IMHO you may want to check out whether or not the EFS 17-55 is the right lens for you. The IQ of the 17-55 certainly is right "up there" comparable with the Ls.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

Unless you already plan to move to FF in the future, otherwise, shooting crop with new 24-70 f2.8 II is kinda waste $$$. I love this lens on my 5D III.

What about 17-55 f2.8 IS?


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 11, 2012)

I did a head to head test of the 24-70ii and the 17-55 on my 7D back in October and found that while the 24-70ii is slightly sharper than the 17-55, there really is nowhere near enough difference to justify the extra cost, lack of IS, and less useful range on crop. The 17-55 is just that great of a lens (aside from the subpar build quality.)


----------



## SJ (Dec 11, 2012)

Thanks everybody for reply...

1st thing i consider to buy 24-70 II is the IQ (_base on review at website, but im not sure how this lens perform on crop sensor because the review base on FF sensor_), weather sealed & more extra FL compare than ef-s 17-55.

i heard some people complain about dust in 17-55.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

SJ said:


> i heard some people complain about dust in 17-55.



I heard some people complain about Martians stealing the loose change from their couches. I think both complaints can be safely ignored.

IMO, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C... But, since you already have the 10-22mm to cover the wide end, the 24-70 II would be a reasonable purchase, and would do well on a 7D.


----------



## kdw75 (Dec 11, 2012)

I was tempted by the 17-55, but I refused to buy a lens that only worked with crop sensor cameras. I did it once with my 60mm Macro, but never again. When I go FF I don't want to have to deal with switching glass.


----------



## SJ (Dec 11, 2012)

Thanks a lot, u all very helpful.. ;D


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 11, 2012)

kdw75 said:


> I was tempted by the 17-55, but I refused to buy a lens that only worked with crop sensor cameras. I did it once with my 60mm Macro, but never again. When I go FF I don't want to have to deal with switching glass.



Hmm, I was about to suggest the Sig 17-70 (and ask if people actually thought it was good as I was considering it myself...)
but guess it does stick as a problem that way. I just went FF, and yet I have an UWA for crop only, so I can't give up my crop yet... means I travel with two camera bodies just to have the range covered.
As for the 24-70ii why not? Again the range is covered with the UWA and at least for me and portraits, the equivalent FF range would be great, and when it comes to IQ, a lens is almost always "better" on a crop for sharpness, distortion, vignetting control etc. Just less DOF control and longer perspective


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2012)

"Less useful range" depends on the usage. I always liked the 24-70 better on 1.3 than fullframe for general purpose..

Good and great glass is neverever a waste Imo..af speed and weatherseal is also a serious benefit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

kdw75 said:


> I was tempted by the 17-55, but I refused to buy a lens that only worked with crop sensor cameras. I did it once with my 60mm Macro, but never again. When I go FF I don't want to have to deal with switching glass.



IMO, that's like stating, "I refuse to buy the BMW 760Li because it doens't have a towing package option, and I may buy a boat someday." I recommend getting the best lens for what you need to shoot, today, with the body that you have. Now, if you're getting a FF camera next month, that's one thing. But "I may go FF someday, maybe..." isn't a good reason to choose a less appropriate lens, IMO. 

Consider the L-series lenses people suggest as general purpose zoom options for APS-C, and keep in mind that a 'general purpose zoom' covers wide angle to short telephoto:


24-70 I or II - no wide angle, good IQ, no IS
24-105 - no wide angle, good IQ
16-35 II - no tele, good IQ, no IS
17-40 - just ok IQ, no IS

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS fit the focal range definition of general purpose on APS-C, and offer excellent IQ (better than the L-series lenses listed above, with the probable exception of the 24-70 II, when comparing them on the same APS-C camera).

Both of those lenses hold their value like L-series lenses - buy one, use it for 2-3 years, and the way lens prices are increasing, you won't take much of a loss (I sold the 10-22mm a year after I bought it, for $50 less than I paid for it new from Amazon).

The only reasons I can see to use one of the L-series lenses are if you shoot both FF and APS-C, are buying FF _very_ soon, or have a 7D and require a weather sealed lens.


----------



## SebSic (Dec 11, 2012)

EF-S 17 - 55 and dust is not just a theory. It is real and even with recent copies.
Dust won't be visible on pictures taken with this lens anyway.
With a 2 years warranty, you could send it back to Canon for a deep cleaning process, if dust +++

IMO, EF 24-70 II, can only be better (IQ) on crop sensors (compared to ff) cause only center of the lens will be used and center is the best part of lense.


----------



## Mendolera (Dec 11, 2012)

kdw75 said:


> I was tempted by the 17-55, but I refused to buy a lens that only worked with crop sensor cameras. I did it once with my 60mm Macro, but never again. When I go FF I don't want to have to deal with switching glass.



Its a small hassle switching glass but at the same time you don't lose out on the great shots you can get with the lens and body combination you have. The 60mm macro is a great lens for a crop sensor. I had the 100mm Macro on my XSI and felt it was too long for anything but macro so I sold it. The 60mm is more versatile for portraits and other things. 

I just sold my 10-22 that I bought for $570 and sold for $525 after owning it for a year. The better EF-S (10-22, 17-55, 15-85, and 60) lens maintain their value almost as well L glass.

On my trip to Dubai I was able to fit the Burj Khalifa in the frame with my 60D/10-22 combination which something I wasn't able to do with my 24-105L at the time.


----------



## SteenerMe (Dec 11, 2012)

If money is no object, then the 24-70 II is as good as it gets in that range. However if speed isnt a concern, for a third of the price a 24-105 can be had. Will be the same quality iq or better as your 10-22. I had the 17-55 on a 7d but after a few months, while it had no effect on the pictures, i could not keep a lens that cost that much which fills with dust. i then went with the 24-105 which i used the majority of the time. With the leftover money you could sell your 7d and get a 5d3. About the same end price....but ultimately yes the 24-70 II will not disappoint, on any camera body!


----------



## tomscott (Dec 11, 2012)

17-55mm all the way cracking lens. Unless you plan on going full frame, then i would say get the 24-70mm MKI because the MKII IMO isnt worth another £1000!!!! Insane. Regardless how much better it is it isnt £1000 better.

Mine has suffered from bad dust, but doesn't affect IQ, but mine has shot over 150,000 images and had no filter for half of that. A filter is a must. Wish I had got one to start with, has had no extra dust since i put one on.


----------



## magic koala (Dec 11, 2012)

I've been shooting Xmas card portraits the last 3 weeks and I always bring the people to the same park with the same equipment.
I have the 135mm on the 5DMK3 and the new 24-70mm on the 7D. I prefer the 135mm when I'm outdoors but I have the zoom just in case I need to go a little wide and a little closer.
I don't make money off my photos and I do very little post processing. I can't really tell any difference in practical image quality with the 24-70mm against my 24-105mm and 17-55mm.
Of course, I appreciate the f/2.8 over the f/4, the weight and the build/reach over the 17-55.

I'd say the 24-70mm works great on the 7D but if you're an amateur like me and would like to save some money, other zooms might fit your needs for less money.

I will say that I can tell the difference between the new 24-70mm and the prior 24-70mm. I really disliked using the older version due to its weight and it just was not responsive in low light. I definitely have more keepers wit the new one.


----------



## gcmj45acp (Dec 11, 2012)

SJ said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I have 7D + EF-S 10-22mm & i plan to buy the new EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM, but im not sure this lens can give the top IQ on crop sensor like 7D.
> 
> ...



From all I've heard, the new 24-70LII is a significant step up from the original 24-70L I have run on my 7D. If that's the case, I think you'll be quite happy. If I knew then what I know now, I don't know that I'd have bothered dumping my 10-22mm since I basically paid twice as much money to get similar performance out of the 16-35LII on my 5DmkII.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 11, 2012)

tomscott said:


> 17-55mm all the way cracking lens. Unless you plan on going full frame, then i would say get the 24-70mm MKI because the MKII IMO isnt worth another £1000!!!! Insane. Regardless how much better it is it isnt £1000 better.


I had bad luck with the 17-55 as the IS motor failed while still under warranty. Image quality was excellent, but my impression was that the lens didn't seem to have a build quality to match its price. The new 24-70 II is expensive, but both image quality and build quality seem to be a match for the price.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 11, 2012)

IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.

Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.

I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.


----------



## SJ (Dec 12, 2012)

magic koala said:


> I've been shooting Xmas card portraits the last 3 weeks and I always bring the people to the same park with the same equipment.
> I have the 135mm on the 5DMK3 and the new 24-70mm on the 7D. I prefer the 135mm when I'm outdoors but I have the zoom just in case I need to go a little wide and a little closer.
> I don't make money off my photos and I do very little post processing. I can't really tell any difference in practical image quality with the 24-70mm against my 24-105mm and 17-55mm.
> Of course, I appreciate the f/2.8 over the f/4, the weight and the build/reach over the 17-55.
> ...



thanks friend...

actually i start do some wedding photography as a part time job, u can see my work at www.borneocandid.com.
Keep in mind, i still newbie


----------



## SJ (Dec 12, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.
> 
> Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.
> 
> I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.



Thanks..


----------



## SJ (Dec 12, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.
> 
> Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.
> 
> I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.



how about my ef-s 10-22 combo with prime like sigma 35mm f/1.4 & ef 50mm f/1.4. but i thought it become more challenging because i never use a prime before. i just use my 10-22mm for landscape & 18-135 for general


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 12, 2012)

SJ said:


> how about my ef-s 10-22 combo with prime like sigma 35mm f/1.4 & ef 50mm f/1.4. but i thought it become more challenging because i never use a prime before. i just use my 10-22mm for landscape & 18-135 for general



Primes are nice although I would suggest getting them one at time to see if it works for you. I currently use primes for the midrange and zooms for the wide and telephoto focal lengths.


----------



## Area256 (Dec 12, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> IQ wise it'll be a fine lens on a 7D.
> 
> Focal range wise (as most are saying) it'll be weird at best and annoying at worst. Or maybe I just have a stronger opinion about this than most people. But I found the 24-70mm to be very frustrating on my 7D. It is this strange 38.5-112mm range that almost makes it not usable for it's designed purpose. I guess you have the 10-22mm to give you the UWA/WA shots, but it seems it would force you to change lenses a lot.
> 
> I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm or EF 16-35mm (25.6-56mm) if you have FF plans farther down the road.



+1 I used the 24-105mm on a 60D for a while, and also had the 10-22mm - and I found myself changing lenses a lot, and carrying them both around all the time. The 16-35mm, or even the 17-40mm would seem to make for a better crop camera lens (if you want to leave the full frame option open). 

Of course a lot depends on what you shoot. If you want to have access to the longer range, and don't care much about having the wide angle, the 24-70 could work well..


----------



## azezal (Dec 12, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > 17-55mm all the way cracking lens. Unless you plan on going full frame, then i would say get the 24-70mm MKI because the MKII IMO isnt worth another £1000!!!! Insane. Regardless how much better it is it isnt £1000 better.
> ...



Similar experience steered me off the efs route,used to love the 17-55,thankfully it wasn't my lens


----------



## M.ST (Dec 12, 2012)

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L performs very well on the 7D.

It´s is better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but the focal lenght start at 24 mm. You have to chance often to the super wide angle lens.

Compared to the price of a 7D and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS I can´t recommend the lens for APS-C.

If you have the money, want the lens and add a FF camera to your 7D in the next year then get the lens. The image quality of the lens on APS-C is amazing and much better than on FF cameras.


----------



## SJ (Dec 12, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The EF 24-70 2.8 II L performs very well on the 7D.
> 
> It´s is better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but the focal lenght start at 24 mm. You have to chance often to the super wide angle lens.
> 
> ...



Thanks friend


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 12, 2012)

Recently got the new 24-70L II. At my age, not much looks sharp even with my glasses ;D. Haven't been out much but I did take this photo yesterday. It was very cloudy and windy with some drizzle and haze. 7D @47mm, f/8.0, 1/1000s, ISO 100 handheld. PP in Canon DPP.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 12, 2012)

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS). 
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year. 

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential. 

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.


----------



## SJ (Dec 13, 2012)

BrandonKing96 said:


> I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
> I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day. But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it. But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.
> 
> Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential. It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.
> ...



My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light? 

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (_without using speedlight_) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on _focal X 1.6_ to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5 

btw, thanks for sharing


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 13, 2012)

SJ said:


> BrandonKing96 said:
> 
> 
> > I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
> ...


To me, it performs brilliantly! Even though I've only got that 9 AF point compared to your 19 (lol I think it's that).
You'll be blown away by it's f/2.8 performance for low light.  I was! I only had 3.5 as my fastest before as well (coincidentally, the 10-22). But even so I think when I finally add some primes after I upgrade to 5D III, those low light performances will absolutely shock me at what I've been missing out on haha
And also, it may just be harder to get the sharper shots due to the weight of the lens. But you get used to it. I'm used to it now after only 2 weeks of having it! But I've learned not to be afraide to jump up to ISO 2500 now.. even 3200 (although i'm using it on a 60D). But I think you'll find you'll be quite please with this lens if you choose to get it. 
But this is me talking about the 24-70 II still, not including the 17-55. perhaps someone would come along with information to sway your decision. But both lenses are amazing lenses. The 17-55 is good for it's price, but pointless if you upgrade to full frame in the near future, and the 24-70 II is worth it's money!


----------



## SJ (Dec 13, 2012)

BrandonKing96 said:


> SJ said:
> 
> 
> > BrandonKing96 said:
> ...



Thanks for sharing BrandonKing96, im very excited to get this lens


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 13, 2012)

SJ said:


> BrandonKing96 said:
> 
> 
> > SJ said:
> ...


No problem! I suppose the best advice I can give is to just get a chance to play with either as much as possible to see which one you'd prefer or would suit you more. Go to a shop that allows you to play with both, or rent the two for a bit (if you feel like spending the money though) and just see which one would do better for you


----------



## SJ (Dec 19, 2012)

Finally i got my 24-70 f/2.8L II USM + Carl Zeiss 82mm uv filter, it's very sharp lens. AF sometime a bit hunting at low light on my 7D, i thought 10-22 have faster AF than 24-70II at low light.

thanks everybody for sharing idea, comment, experience about this lens.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 20, 2012)

Congratulations! Enjoy it.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 23, 2012)

SJ said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I have 7D + EF-S 10-22mm & i plan to buy the new EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM, but im not sure this lens can give the top IQ on crop sensor like 7D.
> 
> ...



Tests show that good copies of this lens perform better than the 15-85mm and bad copies perform worse than the 15-85mm on the 7D.

The 17-55mm performs much better on the other hand. And has IS. 

If you're spending that much money though why not buy a 6D and a 24-105mm, it will delivery better image quality in every measurable and conceivable way, be equivalent to f/2.5 which is a faster f stop, have more megapixels, AND will have a greater equivalent focal range.


----------

