leftj Loc: Texas

It really doesn't matter. The 24-105L is a great lens for either.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

If you need more on the wide end and only one lens, the Sigma 18-200 or the Canon EF-S 18-135. Otherwise the 24-105 and a WA in your bag. The Canon 10-18 is small and portable.

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

I, too agree with TriX, my EF 24-105L IS lens is on my camera 90% of the time. Cheers.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

24-70mm f/2.8

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 And if the OP ever moves to a FF, it will still be a great walk-around lens. Very sharp and has IS. It was the first lens I bought for my 7D when I went digital, and it’s still on my 5D3 a good percentage of the time if I don’t have specific plans. I ended up supplementing the wide end with a 17-40L, which I use mostly for indoor real estate work.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

....If money matters, the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 or, if you are not so fussy about IQ, the Canon 18-200 or 18-135.

..

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

With me being on a fixed income I picked up a EF-S 55-250mm after checking reviews here.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, the 24-105 is a large, heavy, relatively expensive full frame lens that does not go wide enough - especially for my taste - just sayin....a very GOOD lens for FF tho .

..

leftj Loc: Texas

I'll file this in the weird category.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

I shall follow suit!

reguli Loc: Uruguay

The focal is independent of the quality of the lens. 24mm will be always 24mm, what I said is at the same distance you will fill more the frame with an APS-C than a FF. So, if you want to fill the frame with your camera equally than a FF you need to take the shot more distant. But believe me this is not an issue and if you can afford the price go to the 24-105mm L you will not be desapointed.

1950Dan Loc: Lockwood, Nevada

Love my 7d and the 18-135 lens is nice but it gets to be heavy to carry all day. I switched to a 28-80 off an older EOS Elan and the size and weight are much better to wander around with.
https://petapixel.com/2014/09/18/old-inexpensive-and-tack-sharp-canons-best-lenses-you-dont-know-about/
I got an OM-D M-10 II on eBay that is now my walkaround.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF 24-105mm f/L lenses are "okay". They have decent image quality, but when used on an APS-C camera such as 7D or 80D, they offer a "standard to moderate telephoto" range of focal lengths. The "II" improves on the original in a few ways... better image stabilization and it uses the new "Nano USM" ultrasonic focus drive (quiet and smooth like STM making it good for video, but also fast like USM making it good for action photography). But image quality is about the same... pretty good, but some other lenses are as good for less money or similar price with better IQ.

Frankly, I've never been all that impressed with the original 24-105. For 1/2 to 1/3 the price, the Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM can pretty much do all the original 24-105 did. It's just as fast focusing, close focusing, stabilized and covers similar range with similar image quality. Time has shown that even durability seems similar, though you'd expect and L-series lens to be tougher and better built. The 24-105 "II" hasn't been around long enough to say if it will be longer-lasting and require less repair. The 28-135mm has recently been discontinued, but has been around since the film era so there are many of them on the used market, if it can't be found new.

I think Canon also missed an opportunity with the 24-105 II... A little earlier they'd introduced the EF-S 18-135mm IS "USM" using similar Nano-USM. Since that lens is ideal for video (among other things), they offered an interesting PZ-E1 Power Zoom module to fit the new EF-S 18-135mm USM. But for some unknown reason, they didn't make the 24-105 II compatible with the PZ-E1. (The new EF 70-300mm IS USM "II" is the third lens to use Nano-USM and it also isn't compatible with the PZ-E1.) That was pretty dumb, if you ask me! They could have sold a lot more of the $100 accessories by simply changing the design of the new 24-105 slightly (and the same with the new 70-300mm).

The EF-S 18-135mm IS USM is another option for 7D or 80D... able to give both truly wide angle view, as well as more powerful telephoto. At $600, it's also a lot less expensive than the 24-105 II ($1100).

And the more "premium" choices... both offering better image quality than any of the above... are the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

The EF-S 15-85mm gives a great range of focal lengths in a single lens, plus image quality that rivals the best L-series. It's one drawback is that it's a slower lens, with a f/3.5-5.6 variable aperture.

If you need f/2.8, there's the EF-S 17-55mm... also with image quality that matches the best L-series. But, like most larger aperture lenses, it has a narrower range of focal lengths. (Note: Early copies of this lens were prone to getting dust inside... but Canon must have done something to address that because you never see folks complaining about that in recent years.)

Unless you also have a full frame camera in your stable and need the EF lens for that too, I'd recommend the EF-S 18-135mm USM as a lower cost alternative (if you don't need the focus speed for sports/action, there's an even less expensive STM version... Aside from the focus drive and compatibility with the PZ-E1, the $400 "STM II" is identical in all other respects to the $600 "USM" version). Or choose between stepping up to either the EF-S 15-85mm ($800 new) or the EF-S 17-55mm (<$900). Or, if you can live without the wide angle range (perhaps you already have an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm), save money and buy a used EF 28-135mm for around $200 to $250.

If you DO use a FF camera, I'd recommend either the inexpensive 28-135mm. Or, if budget allows and a premium L-series is wanted... the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM: better image quality, a little less money, smaller, lighter, less expensive at $900 and MUCH closer focusing. In fact, might not need a macro lens with it, since it can do amazing .70X all on its own (the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM "II" is truly superb, but a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive... and it doesn't have IS).

chaman

Me too.

leftj Loc: Texas

Very nice write-up. You've got me thinking about looking for a good used EF-S 28-138mm IS USM to add to my lens stable. If anyone out there has one to sell let me know.