danersmiff

Body is 7Dmk2- I have a EF100mm f2.8 L IS USM, EF 85mm f1.8 USM, and a Sigma 150-500 zoom,---
AND a used Sigma 17-35 aspherical that sometimes focuses and sometimes I have to nudge it, (needs replaced)...

choices selected
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM--

I need a smaller walk about, and I think I want the 17-55 because of the f2.8.
My question I suppose is, to L or not to L .

Are the L lenses that good in low light to make up f2.8 to f4?

I am an amateur.

My photo style is anything that grabs my eye 1st, moving or not, leaning to birds and nature 2nd.
With that in mind I like to use faster shutter speeds to offset some handshake. ISO can go up to 2 or 3000, or more depending...

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

An L suffix is just that, top quality which you pay for, and get, top quality results.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The EF-S lens is only marginally smaller and lighter than the two L lenses. The weight comes from the IS and the large piece of glass needed for a lens with an f/2.8 aperture. For a general purpose lens on a crop body, you'll have to evaluate your own shooting style. In my own 'old days', I used the 24-105L on the original 7D model. Great combo. But, I shoot way more 'wide' now with a 16-35mm lens on a full frame where 24mm lenses on your body give a less 'wide' equivalent of 38mm. You'd also have to decide from your own needs why f/2.8 is needed. Are you shooting in general situations in extremely low-light or for artistic composition with a narrow DOF? For general purposes on you body, you might also want to consider the EF-S 18-135 IS STM or the 16-35 f/4L IS. Compared to the L lenses you've identified, you'd give up the long end while maintaining the wide end for a very sharp IS-enabled lens. The EF-S candidate is the cropped version of a 24-105, with more length on the long end.

The L line of lenses provides a few characteristics, some unique to the lenses such as apertures wider than f/1.8. All the lenses feature a rugged build for heavy duty long-term use. As you've surely seen in your 85 f/1.8, the optics outside the L line can be just as amazingly sharp. The non L 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is another example of excellent optics in a less rugged body at a substantially less price relative to the L model.

JPringle Loc: Australia

As a user of only the EFS 17-55 f2.8 and the EF 24-105 f4 (old one), my opinion would be that 'no' would be a short answer! f2.8 is f2.8 and f4 is f4, and effectively a calculation as to how much light a lens will let in.

L lenses are a lot about rugged build, durability, weather sealing and sometimes faster focus, as much as delivering sharper images. My understanding is they need more optical engineering and glass to cover the larger sensors, so more expensive.

So the 'prosumer range' of Canon's EFS lenses are pretty good. The EFS 17-55 is a good performer which favourably compares to the EF 24-105 f4 at f4, but offers significant low light advantage with f2.8. Having said that, my EFS 17-55 is a bit softer at f2.8 than my EF 24-70 f2.8 and my EF 100 f2.8L, and possibly just a smidge sharper than my EF 85 f1.8 at f2.8.

While not great in low light situations, my favourite walk around on a crop body these days is the EFS 15-85.

Your camera body will make a fair bit of difference to your low light keepers too, with most newer bodies offering better low light capabilities.

Just an opinion but I hope it helps

danersmiff

Thankyou. To answer, I love the 85 f1.8. i haven't put it to full potential yet. It is too long for indoors, at home. My train of thought, is since I am not a pro, if the 17-55 performs as well the 85, i am home free. It is in the usm family, same as the 85, and it has f2.8, so I can get the candles being blown out, with out having to jump the ISO to outer space.

thanks again.

danersmiff

Thank you Mr Pringle. i will snoop the 15-85 as well...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might too look at a prime in the 24mm to 40mm range where some of the lenses offer IS along with wide apertures. Then, combined with something more general purpose in the 17ish to 85+ish. Shooting candle lit birthday parties would be a specific purpose in my photography rather than a zoom with a wide focal length. A few combinations exist for 2 lenses vs the sales price of a single new L lens.

danersmiff

duly noted.. thx

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Keep in mind that with the 7Dll a 24 mm becomes 38MM with the crop factor. and in tight places you may be in trouble. however, if you think you may go FF in the future then you have that to consider too. (I wouldn't get the EF-S lens in that case)

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

When I had a crop body I had the 17-55mm L f/2.8 lens. That lens was my favorite lens. I had it on my camera 90% of the time. It was so sharp.

danersmiff

Yes thank you

danersmiff

I think i am finding that short of the L lenses, but including a couple of those, the 17-55 is usm is the standard bearer in this class of Canons.....

I kept reading in Sigma reviews and Tamron reviews, as well as the Canon ef*s15-85 reviews--- "while not as good as the ef-s 17-55, this is a very good lens"...

thanks every one !!

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Yes, I forgot that the 17-55mm lens is not a "L" lens. It sure performs like one though. I now have the 70-200mm f/2.8, 24-104 f4 & 16-35 f4. And I still liked the 17-55 as much.