billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

Guess I am a pompous a-hole, but I personally agree with your guru. I shot with a 24-70 on a crop sensor and at the wide end you are at 38mm, which is basically a standard lens. If you are not interested in wide angle landscapes and such it will be okay, but it is not wide enough for landscape or for indoor close quarters shooting.

I found that a great general purpose lens for the crop sensor was an EFS 18-135, and this will fit nicely between the lenses that you already have, the image quality is very good and focus is fast and accurate. Only negative would be that you are losing 1 stop at the telephoto end as this lens is f 3.5-5.6. This lens will give you 28 mm at the wide end which works well for landscape and tight places and 216 on the long end which is nice telephoto. Canon just released a new 18-135 IS that should be remarkable. The 15-85 would be a great choice as well and a little smaller than the 18-135, but costs more.

I just got the new 24-105 L II and it seems like it is going to be a great lens, but I am using it on a full frame not crop.

Bill

DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You're not being pompous. While the 24-105 is a great walk around lens for many people on a crop body, I find the wide end too restrictive for what I like to shoot when I'm out and about. For general outdoor shooting I prefer the Canon 15-85 mm on my Canon 7D Mark II because of the very significantly wider short end, and I find that this range meets most of my general requirements better than the 24-105, which I've used on several occasions. The DXOmark scores for both on a Canon 7D II are very similar, and while the build quality of the 15-85 is not quite at the same level, it is nonetheless very good. Some folks will also prefer the flexibility of the new Canon 18-135 IS USM.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Welcome and find a new guru.

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

This is actually my "walking around" lens on my Canon EOS 50D. It is a great lens and would supplement your other 3 lenses beautifully. The photography "guru" is simply wrong about this. I would go for it

DanCulleton

I've used the 24-105 L f/4.0 on both my 5D and 7D.
It's a great general purpose lens on either, especially for shooting outdoors.
It's light when compared to the 24-70 L f/2.8 which is my go to indoor lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You failed to read the original post.
The OP has a 10-18 lens for the wide shots.
This is a great wide lens to cover the wide. The 24-105 is one of the best quality options and if the OP goes FF ever it will work just great on it as well.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Why don't we get just get a Nikon to EF adapter cause every one know we climb up the tree FF and then Nikon.

I shared as have other their experience of owning both the L in question and a EFs, Better results from EFs on crop and L on FF. I also have EFs 10-22 for crop and 16-28 for FF. All glass is as sharp as and copy I have seen.

J. R.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Yes, but when using it as a general walk around lens I think people tend to keep a single lens mounted. For some, like me, in that situation the 24 mm on crop doesn't go wide enough. The choice really depends on what you shoot.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Danny,

While there's nothing at all wrong with a 24-105L on a 7DII, it still wouldn't be my first choice for other reasons. Mainly because there are other lenses that can do just as good job for less money... and still other lenses that have various features making them a better choice for me. But, a blanket statement that it's "senseless to use a 24-105 on a crop sensor" just tells me that "guru" ain't nearly as smart as he (or she) thinks he (or she) is. That's just utter B.S. For some people that lens may be a good choice and make a lot of sense!

Assuming you are looking for a "walk-around" zoom... On 7DII an EF-S 18-135mm STM or USM IS might make more sense for various reasons: It's smaller, lighter, will usually cost less and offers a wider range of focal lengths in a single lens. The STM version might be okay if you don't shoot a lot of sports/action. The newer USM version would be even better, but is still bringing a premium price. Either of these is quiet and smooth enough focusing for video work.... the USM version uses Canon's new "Nano USM" focus drive that's quieter and smoother than earlier USM-drive lenses. The 18-135mm USM is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version of the lens. (Note: Similar is true with the older and newer versions of the 24-105L. The original 24-105L has standard USM that's fast and fine for action, but not ideal for video work. The new Mark II version 24-105L uses a new "Nano USM" that's said to be both fast enough for action and fully usable for video.)

If you want lower cost, in my opinion the venerable EF 28-135 IS USM is often one of the best bargains simply there are so many of them around. It's typically about 1/2, 1/3 the cost of 24-105. Even so, it can pretty much match the original 24-105L in most respects: image quality, focus speed, close focusing ability, image stabilization, durability and functionality. The only slight differences are the ranges of focal lengths, variable versus non-variable aperture, the L-series feels/seems a little better built, and might have a little bit better sealing for dust/weather resistance. The 28-135 and original 24-105L are both plenty fast focusing for sports, but not ideal for video.

If you need a faster lens, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM would be a good choice. Great image quality, top performance in all respects, and very good mid-grade build (probably equal to the 24-105L) although it's not L-series quality build or sealing. Not cheap, but not as expensive as, say, a 24-70/2.8. If you have one or two larger aperture primes in your kit (such as your 50/1.8), you may not need an f2.8 zoom.

Another excellent walk-around zoom for APS-C is the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. It's a top performer in all respects with good, solid mid-grade build and sealing. It's unusually wide for a lens of this type, might make a separate ultrawide unnecessary for some people. It ain't cheap, though. And you already have a separate ultrawide.

Someone who plans to upgrade eventually to full frame or uses full frame alongside APS-C might prefer 24-105, 28-135 or one of the 24-70s... simply because those lenses can serve on both cameras (the various EF-S lenses are "crop only").

If I were shopping today, for me the best all-purpose, multi-format walk-around, would probably be the EF 24-70/4L IS USM... More modest range zooms generally have the best overall image quality, can be more reasonably sized and priced, the f4 version includes 4-stop IS, and I have several faster primes (28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8) that could complement it if and when needed. The original EF 24-70/2.8L that I use is a great lens, but rather large and heavy.... And the newer, current 24-70/2.8 Mark II version is even bigger/heavier.... Not to mention both these f2.8 lenses are more expensive.

So, you actually have lots of options and should be careful about some of the advice you read. I used 28-135 a lot as a walk-around zoom on APS-C cameras and find it a very convenient lens. Complemented with an ultrawide such as your EF-S 10-18mm or the EF-S 10-22mm and Tokina 12-24/4 that I use, the 28-135 (or 24-105 if you prefer... or 18-135) can make for a very versatile two lens kit, covering a wider range of focal lengths than most film shooters ever owned in their lifetimes.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I agree somewhat, that it would be more beneficial on a full framer for general purpose, but none less it would still be a very nice lens for you to use!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Hi Danny and welcome to the UHH. For your crop frame I would highly recommend you look at the Canon EFS 17-55/2.8 IS lens. It's a well made, sharp medium range zoom that was on my 60D 95% of the time. I replaced it with a 24-70/2.8 when I went to a full frame body.

lulu48

I'm no expert but I use this lens all the time. I have both cropped and FF. I don't usually post anything here but I can relate to this. I recently broke this lens on a trip in Australia. Since I have all distance covered from wide angle to 400mm, I didn't think it was necessary. But I found it very inconvenient not to have it because I found myself needing to change lenses. So I bought one from KEH. It's a good when you don't need extreme distance or close up.

Danny Nash

Wow! Many thanks to everyone for your very valuable opinions. It's a lot to think about but great information that will definitely assist me in my final decision.

Danny

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

As just about everyone has said you really can't go wrong getting one. Other than the size and weight, the only real issue to consider is whether the focal range meets your personal needs for a walk around lens. I certainly would get one in preference to any of the various 18-200 or 18-300, etc. super zooms that many people use from Canon, Tamron or Sigma.