Walkabout: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L I & II

[WinstonSmith]

I have a Canon 7D with the following lenses:

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro
I'm planning on buying a zoom lens suitable as a general walkabout, for use on my travels. I find I mostly use my EF-S 10-22mm while travelling, but it's a little short for a general purpose walkabout and I miss out on a lot of shots I'd like to take.

So, I've been looking at the following: - EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L

I'd envisage bringing both the 10-22mm and whichever new lens I buy on my trips, so the longer range of the 24-70mm and the fact that it doesn't overlap makes it seem ideal, but the IS on the 17-55mm is appealing.

I mostly shoot scenery, from narrow old town cityscapes to wide landscapes. Upcoming trips include Dubai, Hong Kong & The Phillippines.

Is there much difference in picture quality from the output of these two lenses? Which would you recommend, and why? Are there other options I should consider, e.g. is the 24-70mm L II worth the extra money (given that it still doesn't have IS)?

Appreciate the help, thanks.

 

[forkie]

Have u tried pixel-peeper.com u can look at sample pictures with the camera of choice and lens.

 

[WinstonSmith]

Have u tried pixel-peeper.com u can look at sample pictures with the camera of choice and lens.

Thanks, I'll check it out. But I was kind of hoping to hear from users with first hand experience of these lenses for more practical advice.

 

[Houston1863]

With your 7D I would suggest the 17-55. It's an excellent lens and virtually the equivalent of an L lens in terms of quality and you also have IS with it. On your 1.6x body it offers the equivalent of 27.2 - 88mm which takes over just about where the 10-22 ( 16-35 ) ' takes ' you. You won't need the 24-70 on your 1.6x body besides which it is quite a heavy lens.