Which lens to fill the gap between EF-S 10-22 and 70-300L ?

[Seight_Returns]

I currently have a Canon 7D with EF-S 10-22, EF-S 15-85, EF-70 300L and 50/1.8 lenses. I also have a 400D with EF-S 18-55 IS which is my “take anywhere” camera which I sometimes pair up with one of the better lenses to give me a 2 body setup which I like doing, but my wife tells me makes me look like ridiculous. Also have a 430EX.

I’m very happy with the 10-22 and the 70-300L – to my eye their colour, contrast, resolution and sharpness are excellent. I’m not quite as happy with 15-85, it’s a very, very good lens and its range and IS make it hugely versatile and a great option when you can only take one lens – but the better is the enemy of the good and compared back to back with the 10-22 and 70-300, it’s a noticeably weaker performer in terms of sharpness and resolution. Increasingly this annoys me.

So I’m looking for the right lens to “fill the gap”. I appreciate that the “what’s the best standard zoom for an APS-C camera” question is frequently asked, and the collective wisdom is “17-55 if you want IQ, 15-85 is you want versatility”, but I’ll be keeping the 15-85 for when I only want to carry one lens and accept the compromise and I’ll have my 10-22 with me to cover the wide end when I’m carrying the new lens – so I’d like to think this makes my question subtlety different.

I shoot travel, my young children, kids sporting events.

Options I’m considering are:

EF-S 17-55
+ Excellent IQ on APS-C, has IS, could potentially do what I’m looking for AND replace the 15-85, f/2.8 would be nice
- Resent paying all that money for the so-so build quality, range not ideal - significant overlap with 10-22 and gap between 55 and 70.

EF 24-105L
+ good range that fits between the other 2 well, the red ring appeals to the gear snob in me
- not convinced that IQ will be noticeably better than 15-85

EF 24-70L
+ ideal range, better IQ than 24-105 (and the 17-55?), f/2.8, L snobbery
- Big, Heavy, Expensive, no IS

I’m trying to avoid non Canon lenses having been burnt by a cheap Tamron in the past, but could be persuaded if I could be convinced that there’s a Tamron/Sigma that doesn’t give up anything in IQ.

I have no aspirations to upgrade to a full frame camera anytime soon, I’m looking for the lens that will work best with the body I have now.

Which would you buy ?

Recent posters of “which entry level SLR and lens should I get?” - take note and be warned – this will be you in 18 months or less.

[Matt..]

'Filling the gap' is not a reason to buy a lens.

What do you find you're missing at the moment? Personally i use very few lenses as i'd prefer to not continuously change them. I shoot with a 5dmk2 and 17-40L and 85 1.8, and the 17-40L is on the camera 90% of the time. I primarily now shoot travel and the only lens i really want is a 35L to give me a fun low night/people lens that isn't as long as the 85.

I don't see the point in buying for the sake of it, so you must be missing something to need to fill it, so what are you trying to shoot that you can't?

[RobDickinson]

17-55 without a doubt.

24-105f4L would be my choice on FF.

24-70L is a large lump and great bokeh but weak at the wide end.

My 17-55 has been faultless , delivering the goods time after time.



The Glory of Arrowtown ~Explored~ by robjdickinson, on Flickr


Beautiful to a fault by robjdickinson, on Flickr


The Commuter by robjdickinson, on Flickr


Mt Pleasant View by robjdickinson, on Flickr


Sumner Night 4 by robjdickinson, on Flickr


Misty Hagley Park sunrise 3 by robjdickinson, on Flickr

[Seight_Returns]

RobDickinson said:

17-55 without a doubt.

24-105f4L would be my choice on FF.

24-70L is a large lump and great bokeh but weak at the wide end.

My 17-55 has been faultless , delivering the goods time after time.

Thank You.

That's where my head has been on the basis of everything I've read and all the images I've seen on Flickr and elsewhere.

My heart wants a red ring on my next c£800 lens - but I needed some reassurance that that's the wrong decision.

edit - cracking images btw

Edited by Seight_Returns on Tuesday 14th February 21:59

[RobDickinson]

I actually dont think it quite matches the IQ of the 70-200f2.8L I have, in terms of sharpnes it does, but in contrast and colour I still think it lacks.

It is easier to make a longer zoom though

[Craikeybaby]

I find that all I need between my ultra wide zoom and tele zoom is a standard prime (in my case 50mm on FF), I can't say I've ever felt like a miss not having 40-50mm or 50-70mm covered.

[DJ_AS]

RobDickinson said:

17-55 without a doubt.

24-105f4L would be my choice on FF.

24-70L is a large lump and great bokeh but weak at the wide end.

+1