I just got a 7D and was wondering what lens would be the best all around lens for general shooting. I will mostly be using the camera for short / feature narrative films and documentary applications.

I was thinking about this one:
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 8014A002


Any suggestions?

That's the exact lens I have on my 7D 75% of the time. I love it.

Thanks Bryan, it seems like the best all around lens for what I want to do, but before I dropped $1300 bucks I wanted to ask around. =)

Anyone think a few prime lenses would be better?

I use that 24-70L 99% of the time too. Why fumble with primes when I can zoom? Most of us are outputting to the web or DVD for clients, I doubt you could tell the difference in quality with those outputs. Plus my sensor stays uber clean as my that lens is the only lens I own and has never been off the camera from day 1.

The 24-105/4L IS is also worth a look. It's not as fast, but has a bigger zoom range and image stabilization.

Personally though, I'd probably get the 17-55/2.8 IS. I find the 17-55mm range to be perfect for "human scale" video. (Actually, I use 28-85 on the 5D2, which has a similar view.) With this lens, you get f/2.8 speed, the ideal "normal wide to portrait" range, and stabilization. The only things missing are the "L" designation, associated red ring, and weather sealing. Many feel that the optics are as sharp as an L.

The next target lens might be a 100mm macro, which lets you shoot closeups.

Thanks for the info Annen.

Jon, the 24-105/4L looks interesting. I'll be shooting hand held 90% of the time with a Redrock rig and follow focus, does that make an difference in which lens would be best?

Also, why is this lens cheaper than the 24-70mm when it gives you more zoom?

The 24-70 is more expensive due to the larger glass required to deliver f/2.8 speed for a full frame sensor.

Handheld, I would strongly consider the 17-55/2.8 IS as it's easier to shoot wide than tight by hand. I've used the 24-105/4L IS many times handheld on the 5D2, and I try to stay away from the tight end.

The 24-70 on the 7D is the equivalent of 38 - 112 on the 5D2. The 24-105 is a 38-168 equivalent. The 17-55 is a 27-88 equivalent. For handheld use, the third lens is the most appropriate.

Personally, I like IS for handheld use. It can mess up at times (smooth - jerk - smooth), but it's usually helpful. You can always turn it off if it's not to your liking.

Jon, thanks for the great info. Is this the lens you're talking about?
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens 1242B002 B&H Photo


Also, there is a note on the BH page that reads:
"Note! Designed for the Canon EOS 20D, 30D, 50D, 40D, 7D and all EOS Rebel and EOS Digital Rebel models with APS-C sized sensors (with a 1.6x crop factor)."

What does that mean?

The 17-55 lens is an EF-S lens which means that it can only work with the APS-C or crop cameras and not a Full Frame camera like the Canon 5D Mark II. The APS-C cameras (7D, 60D, T2i, T3i) use a imager chip that is smaller than the full frame chip like on the 5D MII. The 17-55 lens can't provide an image that will cover the full size sensor. Thus the warning.

This is an awesome lens. I also have the 24-105 F4 lens and it is very sharp and the IS works great. The only issue is that it isn't wide enough. It is certainly better than the 17-55 in that it has a much longer zoom.

Both lenses are very good. I like the 24-105 lens on my 5D better than on the 7D.

Anyone think a few prime lenses would be better?

Maybe, but they are easy to add later on.

You can get old Nikon or Pentax glass and use adaptors, which means you might only pay a few hundred dollars for a full collection of fast primes.

If you've got some money to drop on lenses, quality zooms are a good place to start. Less hassle, more variety, and they'll let you figure out what focal lengths you prefer to work with most often.

Daniel, I got cha, thanks for clearing that up. I knew the frame was smaller on the 7D but I didn't know that's what they were talking about.

John, would you go for the 17-55 2.8 IS or the 24-70 2.8L?

So far I'm leaning toward the 17-55 2.8 IS. This video is helping that decision. =)
Vancouver - Testing the Canon 7D on Vimeo

The 17-55/2.8 IS stays on my 7D almost all the time.... great lens.

The glass is as good as L's - the build quality not quite so good but close - in all its on par with L glass.

The 24-70L will soon be replaced or upgraded with IS I think. For hand held use at anything approaching 50mm focal length you need stabilization.

The 17-55/2.8 IS stays on my 7D almost all the time.... great lens.

same here, love that lens, also can't wait for 24-70 IS

For "human scale" shooting, I'd definitely get the 17-55 on the 7D. A 100 macro would be my second lens. It allows facial and prop closeups.

If I were a wildlife or sports shooter, I'd go for a much longer zoom. If I shot extreme sports, add an ultrawide and/or fisheye. And you probably still need a normal or portrait lens for interviews.

For low light shooting, the Canon 24/1.4L and Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 would be my choice. The Zeiss provides smooth focusing. The Canon is the fastest wide available. It doesn't have the greatest focus ring, but that's not as critical at the wide end. Sure, the Canon 50/1.2L is faster, but I'll give up a half stop for better focusing.

But for standard framing on the 7D for handheld use, the 17-55/2.8 IS would be my first lens purchase, no question.

Well I'm sold on the 17-55 then, thanks everyone for all the great input on this.

One last question, are there an known issues with using the Redrock follow focus with the 17-55? I know some lenses don't work well with the gears etc.

Also, just to make sure, this is the 17-55 were all talking about correct?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

Yes, that's the lens.

BTW, I see that it's compatible with extension tubes. That would be the cheap way to get macro capabilities. You lose light and the image will be a bit softer than with a real macro lens, but it would be an inexpensive way to get closeups of faces and props. Being able to show a handwritten note, a ring, or a spent shell can be important for storytelling.

I'm hoping that Canon will eventually release a 28-70/2.8 IS as that would be the equivalent solution on my 5D2.

John, would you go for the 17-55 2.8 IS or the 24-70 2.8L?


I'll be going for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non IS version) when I get my DSLR setup soon. That's just personal my preference though - one of the many reasons I want to go to DSLR's is to get a wider view than my camcorders. So a lens with an equivelant FOV at full wide to my FX7 defeats the purpose!

I'm planning to get the Tokina 11-16mm and a 70-200 f/2.8 as well (not sure which one yet). That way I'll have f/2.8 aperture available from 11mm-200mm with a bit of a gap from 50-70mm. For weddings I'll have several bodies though, so I'm not concerned about having to change lenses on one body all the time. If this is a concern for the work you're doing, then the 24-70mm with it's wider zoom range might be a better option.

The 50-70 gap shouldn't be a concern. I generally shoot with primes. Between work and home, I have access to lenses of 21, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100, 200, and 400mm (200 with doubler.) One could say that I cover 21-400 with gaps from 22-27, 29-34, 36-49, 51-84, 86-99, 101-199, and 201-399. Reading it that way makes it feel like I hardly have any coverage at all. In practice, I don't feel the gaps at all.

FWIW, 21-400 on the 5D2 is like 13-250 on the 7D.

gotta agree with Jon above me about the gaps.

I just got the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and am pretty happy with it so far.
and for the price, that is an unbeatable combo. The Tamron with my 7d is my personal set up, the company I work for has the 5d with a Canon 24-70mm 2.8 and with the full frame sensor, that is a pretty similar field of view (though the 5d absolutely trumps the snot out of my 7d in low light)

I have a couple of vintage primes and I can say that you can get away with quite a bit with a prime that matches the natural eye, which is roughly 30 mm. I just shot a little documentary shoot with a 30mm and was so happy with it that it never came off of my camera. Back up for wider shots, move in for close ups. Stable enough for handheld (with some rudimentary shoulder support) and working with a prime actually forces you to think a little bit more about composition.

So far my kit is:
7d
Tamron 17-50 2.8 for it's convenience
Canon 15-85 3.5/5/6 it was the kit lens, not fast, but fine for outdoor work and at 15 has a considerable wide on it, which is why I am probably keeping it. At 15, it's sort of hard to prioritize a true wide angle lens.
30 mm 2.8 Pentax prime

I also have access to a 70-200 2.8 that I can use when I want

So my shopping list, in order of priority is:
- 30 1.4 Sigma
- 50 1.4 Sigma (although, for the price, I am still considering that cheapy Canon 1.8)
- 11-16 Tokina 2.8
- maybe a macro, although I think those little screw on filter converters might work fine enough considering it's a shot I don't take that often

Thanks for your info Chris, and I agree about prime lenses making you think more about your shots etc, but for my 1st lens I think I should go with a zoom.

All I need to do now is man up and make a decision about which lens to buy.....I think I've narrowed it down to the Tamron 17-50, Canon 17-55 or 24-70. I need to spend some time on Vimeo comparing all these.


Thanks for the help everyone!

As I recall, you mentioned that you plan to use the lens handheld on a shoulder rig. IMHO, you will want IS for that. When looking at videos, make sure to look for shoulder rig, rather than tripod, stuff.

The other thing to consider is the focus ring. I haven't used the Tamron, so I don't know if it's better or worse in this regard. Canon's focus rings aren't all that good for video, so there's not much margin for a lens ring that's worse.

If you're shooting photos - especially wides with deep focus - glass quality is critical. For video? Not so much. When you've highlighted your actor, the eyes need to sparkle, but if the shot has darker, blurry corners, it's no big deal. On the other hand, if the lens vignettes too much, this will show up when you pan.

I found this vignetting comparison...
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens - Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Lens Comparison - Vignetting Test Results (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=396&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Frankly, the Tamron vignettes less than the Canon, though neither lens is bad. For photos and budget, I'd get the Tamron. For handheld video, I'd lean toward the Canon.

Jon, I have the Redrock microFollowFocus v2 so I'm not terribly worried about the focus ring, other than it fitting correctly on the Redrock rig. Thanks for the vignetting comparison that's definitely something I'll want to consider, and I'm also leaning toward the Canon myself.

I've also got the RR v2.

The Canon lenses don't have hard stops, and aside from Macros, the travel of the focus rings is pretty short. I'm not sure about the 17-55 focus ring though. Without hard stops it can be hard to do things repeatably.

With Zeiss lenses, I feel the RR gears, but the lenses are like butter. With Canon, things feel more coarse.

One trick is to focus close to the right distance and then focus with your feet. I shot the video here with the 5D2 and the EF 85/1.8 wide open(!) and mainly used the foot focus method. FWIW, this is the equivalent of shooting at 53mm on the 7D. I also used a Glimmerglass filter for diffusion. Anyway, it should give you an idea of how steady you can get with a shoulder rig at 53mm without walking. I just leaned fore and aft for focus.

Melissa Fairy (http://melissafairy.com)

You may want to consider the Tamron 17-50 VCII (with IS). I've purchased two of them and like it very much and its one of the highest rates lenses on SLRGEAR.com:

Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical IF SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com! (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23)

You may find the site very helpful for researching any and all lenses. Here's the 24-70 you are considering:

Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com! (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11)

The 24-70 will be a better build quality, being dust and weather resistant. L-Glass is also very good! On the Tamron's side, it's specifically designed for EF-S, so there are some advantages to that with the APC sensor.

the 24-70 is an amazing lens, I only use it on the 5d however

If you are on a 7d, I'd stick to something wider, IMO, you'll have more use for the wider ends than longer ones, and you'll have much less shaky hand held footage to boot.
The 24-70 is magic on the 5d, but I only use it for closeup shots on my 7d.
17-50 (or 55) is a perfect range on a crop sensor for most of what you want to do
You have a nice wide at 17, a normal lens at about 30 (like Med shots) and a short tele at around 50 for portraits/CU shots.

Thanks for the links Roger.

Chris, yeah I'm going for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

Buying it tonight, thanks again for all the help everyone!

One trick is to focus close to the right distance and then focus with your feet.

Yeah, I am totally going to try to master that, I have a friend that always films this way and his stuff looks great for indie film work.

The Canon 17-55 is a great lens, I think you'll enjoy it. When you find you need even wider shots, take a very close look at the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. It's highly regarded for the 7D.

Roger, just looked at some footage from the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 on Vimeo and it looks awesome...I will def keep that one on the list to get, thanks.