7D general purpose lens

footydad

footydad

Messages
116
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm hoping to buy a 7D later this year, think I've nailed what lens I want to shoot football matches with it. But, as general purpose lens what would be the best lens to get?
 
For football a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 would get my vote, but for a general purpose walk round lens the Canon 15-85 is superb, great IQ and a good focal range. The only downside is the lack of speed in very low light, but a relatively cheap Canon 50mm f1.8 could solve any shortcomings in that area. Apart from when I'm shooting birds the 15-85 is almost permanently on my 7D
 
The EF 24-105 L f/4 is my general purpose lens on my 7D - maybe a little 'long' at the short end for some (doesn't bother me as I have a 12-24 UWA) but a cracking lens.

The 24-70L 'The Brick' would be another option, but personally I prefer the extra reach of the 24-105 over the extra stop down to f/2.8. Guess it depend on what you're looking for.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is highly regarded for crop cameras - many say its an L lens in all but it's name. Optics are certainly up there with an L lens.

All 3 are well within your budget if bought new, unless £1000 is for both a body and lens. In which case you'd be better off looking 2nd hand for both camera (c. £600-650 for 7D) and lens, maybe the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, which is virtually on a par with the 24-105 optically as far as I'm concerned. I did some side by side controlled shooting with them both on my 7D and the results were very close - almost indistinguishable if you don't pixel peep!
 
Thanks everyone, this is great advice so far, keep it coming. By the way, for the football, I reckon I'll go for a Canon 70-200 2.8 is lens. I appreciate I probably won't need the IS for football, but it'll be nice to have it for other shots (just in case).
 
The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 gets my vote as your general purpose lens and for the zoom the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk II is the daddy, some regard it at prime levels...
 
I think the 17-55 is too short for a walk about lens. I use a 24-105, my Dad has a 15-85 and its pretty good, so I'd go for one of those depending on budget.
 
Another vote for the 15-85. Great IQ and build. I defy anyone to tell a shot taken this lens from a shot taken with the 24-105. I have carried out a direct comparison so I know. (BTW I use a 24-105 on my 5D2 so I have no axe to grind).
 
24-105mm I use it on both a 7D and 5d3. It stays on the 7D most of the time and produces stunning shots.
 
I'd agree with the 24-105. Nice L glass and a perfect walk around lens, too short for football matches - but sits right within budget!
 
+1 too - just upgraded an old 28-105 USM to a 24-105 L, great lens, especially combined with 10-20 Sigma...
 
24-105 :)
 
I use the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D and it's really a great lens. They can be had on MPB used for around £400 to £450 which is where I got mine. Just remember that it's an EF-S lens and wouldn't help if you wanted to share the 7D with a cheap 5D or something.
 
24-105 if you can afford it - if not the 15-85. Had both and both are cracking walk around lenses.
 
I don't care what anyone says but a 24-105L is NOT a great "general purpose" lens on a 7D, because it is waaaay too wide at the short end. I had EFS 10-22 and 24-105L on my 40D but got hacked off having to swap them so often, so when I got my 7D I sold the 24-105L and got an EFS 15-85 and wow was I delighted with it, because it is the perfect "general purpose" lens for a crop sensor body and is every bit as good as the 24-105L in terms of IQ, plus being smaller and lighter. I don't have the EFS 15-85 anymore as I bought a 6D (full frame) and 24-105L and on the 6D the 24-105L is excellent, although I still miss the compactness of the EFS 15-85. I'm sure the EFS 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens also but it isn't quite as wide, is a lot shorter and more expensive and LBH how many of us really nead constant f2.8 aperture?
 
Last edited:
Jackwow said:
I don't care what anyone says but a 24-105L is NOT a great "general purpose" lens on a 7D, because it is waaaay too wide at the short end.
Click to expand...

I presume you mean long at the wide end?

And you forgot "in my opinion" - several others it seems disagree with you ;)
 
Jackwow said:
I don't care what anyone says but a 24-105L is NOT a great "general purpose" lens on a 7D, because it is waaaay too wide at the short end. I had EFS 10-22 and 24-105L on my 40D but got hacked off having to swap them so often, so when I got my 7D I sold the 24-105L and got an EFS 15-85 and wow was I delighted with it, because it is the perfect "general purpose" lens for a crop sensor body and is every bit as good as the 24-105L in terms of IQ, plus being smaller and lighter. I don't have the EFS 15-85 anymore as I bought a 6D (full frame) and 24-105L and on the 6D the 24-105L is excellent, although I still miss the compactness of the EFS 15-85. I'm sure the EFS 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens also but it isn't quite as wide, is a lot shorter and more expensive and LBH how many of us really nead constant f2.8 aperture?
Click to expand...

a bit confusing :thinking:
 
At some time or other I've owned most of the lenses mentioned including the 24-105, 15-85 and 17-55.

My vote would be the 17-55. It was the best lens I've had for around use and the fixed 2.8 does make a big difference when you're shooting indoors which I did a lot woth family get togethers etc.

I only sold it when I went full frame and although I'm glad I tried full frame, my favorite combination I've had is my 60D and 17-55.

I so tried the tamron 17-50 and it just wasn't as good.

At first I was impressed with the 15-85 but I really think the 2.8 makes a huge difference.

The question I would ask is do you you want more range (15-85) or better low light ability (17-55), and more control of depth of field with the latter?
 
Phall82 said:
At some time or other I've owned most of the lenses mentioned including the 24-105, 15-85 and 17-55.

My vote would be the 17-55. It was the best lens I've had for around use and the fixed 2.8 does make a big difference when you're shooting indoors which I did a lot woth family get togethers etc.

I only sold it when I went full frame and although I'm glad I tried full frame, my favorite combination I've had is my 60D and 17-55.

I so tried the tamron 17-50 and it just wasn't as good.

At first I was impressed with the 15-85 but I really think the 2.8 makes a huge difference.

The question I would ask is do you you want more range (15-85) or better low light ability (17-55), and more control of depth of field with the latter?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but I've been looking at various lenses.

Probably better low light ability, in which case the 17-55 looks a good bet. Just one more thing, I noticed there are some comments on the web about dust being a possible issue with the 17-55, has anyone any knowledge about this?
 
footydad said:
Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but I've been looking at various lenses.

Probably better low light ability, in which case the 17-55 looks a good bet. Just one more thing, I noticed there are some comments on the web about dust being a possible issue with the 17-55, has anyone any knowledge about this?
Click to expand...

I didn't notice any. I don't think dust is a problem with this lens but I can only go off my experience.

It's a superb lens and dust worries wouldn't put me off at all.
 
Never had any problem with mine and I've had it for a few years now. So it's definitely not the case that all 17-55s have a dust problem. I do get occasional fogging issues that I don't have with my other lenses which may be down to the same cause of not perfect sealing. But it goes away quickly if I take it off the body for a minute or so.
 
I have owned two 24-105's and one 17-55, and on my 7D the 17-55 was for me the better choice. It was sharper at all apertures, faster, had slightly better IS, and had a better range for my walkaout needs. Each mm at the wide end is worth 3 or 4mm at the long end in terms of usable range. The 24-105 is much better suited to FF bodies, the 17-55 for crops. On a FF body the 24-105 behaves like a 15-65mm equivelent EF-S lens would on a crop. IMHO 24mm (38mm effective) is not wide enough for a general purpose lens on a 7D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top