anotherview Loc: California

Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens. See review here: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-85-is.htm

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I concur.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There are many who either don't live in the wide angle end of the world, or who have other ways of accomplishing wide angle photographs when the need arises. As for myself, I have a D500 which by default has a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. I've had that lens for approaching 15 years and still love it. I can produce absolutely beautiful results with it. But I also have a D500 which usually has the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 full frame zoom. I really bought that lens as an alternative for my D850 (and still use it there icxasionally), but found that I loved what it allowed me to do with a D500. Yes...it gives up some at the wide end. For me, that is rarely a problem. I'll just take three quick shots in portrait orientation and stitch them together if nrcessary.

If wide angle is the goal to start with, I'll use the other camera and lens, or a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom either on one of those cameras or on a full-frame one. There are too many ways to accomplish a task to get hung up on any one approach.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I started with a cropped lens camera, now have both cropped and full fram (5DIV & 7DII) I do not find any degradation of full frame lenses on my 7D. I also learned one lesson in my photo growth, full frame bluenose work in both, non full frame don't work in the full frame. So to keep from having to replace lenses only buy full fram lenses as that will keep you from replacing them later and even though the may cost more in some cases they are generally better lenses.

MountainDave

I have a 77D as a backup camera to my 5D IV. The lens I use on it most is the 24-70 2.8 II. It is an outstanding combo. I sold all my EF-S lenses after I started using L lenses. In good light, it is not possible for me to tell which camera was used with the 24-70. The only caveat here is that the field of view when mounted on a crop frame is about 39-112 so you give up wide angle capabilities. This is not much of an issue for me but if you use 18mm (28mm equivalent) on your EF-S lens a lot, then it could be an issue for you in which case a 16-35 or 17-40 might be a better choice.

I do think the 77D was a huge bargain. Put really good glass on it and you'll be amazed.

al lehman Loc: San jose, ca.

My 24-70 is one of my go to lens. I use it on a full frame as well as a crop frame camera and results are excellent. It's a highly popular and effective lens. Although lens glass has lots to do with sharpness, It's the person behind the lens that perpetuates sharp images.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, the EF 24-70mm could make sharp, richly colored images on your camera.

However, you will be spending a whole lot extra for a full frame lens and then just cropping away most of the image when using it on your APS-C format camera.

For $1000 less ($879 vs $1899) you can get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... which is capable of equally good image quality, has a similarly "fast" f/2.8 aperture, features equally quick USM auto focus and even has Image Stabilization that the 24-70mm lacks. As a lens designed for APS-C, the 17-55mm just makes more sense on your camera. And the much lower cost is a nice bonus.

The 24-70mm is an "L-series" and the 17-55mm is not (no EF-S lens ever will be, since by definition all L lenses must be usable on all EOS cameras and EF-S are ONLY usable on the APS-C models). The 24-70mm has more "pro" quality build and sealing for weather resistance.... plus that red ring so everyone knows you are using an expensive lens. Oh, and like all L-series the 24-70mm comes with the matching lens hood. The hood (EW-83J) for the 17-55mm isn't included. It's sold separately. but highly recommended (Canon OEM, $50 or Vello clone, $20).

In fact, the 17-55mm on an APS-C camera like yours "acts like" approx. 24-70mm on full frame (actually it "acts like 27-88mm... close enuf for government work).

These two lenses essentially serve the same purpose on their respective sensor format cameras. They're both "moderate-wide-to-normal-to-short-telephoto" zooms.

The EF-S 17-55 and EF 24-70 are surprisingly similar in size and weight. The full frame lens is only a little larger and heavier. However, the 17-55mm uses 77mm filters while the 24-70mm II requires 82m, which tend to be significantly more expensive.

A much more thorough review of the EF-S 17-55mm is available here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It so happens Canon also offers EF-S 17-85mm IS USM ($299) and EF-S 15-85mm IS USM ($799) lenses, which cover the same range as the EF 24-70mm plus even more... they're both wider and longer. However, neither of these is an f/2.8 lens. They have smaller, variable maximum apertures... so if that's an important consideration for you, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is more likely to meet your needs. The image quality

P.S. I do have and use a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8. However, I used both APS-C and full frame cameras. If I only had APS-C, I wouldn't hesitate to use the EF-S 17-55mm instead.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If anything, an APS-C camera uses only the "sweet part" of the image produced by a full frame lens. So they will work fine with them. But you must consider the crop factor, if looking for a wide lens for an APS-C camera, 24mm isn't all that wide, which is why kit lenses usually start at 18.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I'm not a Canon guy although I have owned a couple. The lens mount on Canon may not allow this but try it on any camera that will mount full frame and crop lenses...Nikon is an convenient choice.

Look up any full frame lens that has been tested on both type sensors...the lens is never sharper on on the crop sensor. Do not take my word for it look it up for yourself (DXO). https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

To me, the question has never been whether a FF lens is sharper on a crop sensor camera. That's really pretty silly. The question is whether a high grade FF lens will make a better image on a crop sensor than will a typical crop lens. The answer is usually, but not necessarily always, because there simply aren't a lot of high grade crop lenses made. Watch what happens here if anyone suggests that someone might use their existing crop lenses for a while after buying a new full frame body.

For a crowd that claims to be artists (or at least aspiring artists) this is the narrowest thinking group I've ever been around.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

"LarryePage" I agree the technicians will argue over things. The picture is the thing behind the camera, not the camera, lens or software, but they are only things that the person controls to help produce the image.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I have the 77D and love it. which kit lens do you have and is your work really limited my the lens or other things. I have wall hangers prints
16 x20 taken with my Kit 18-135 and I'm happy with them. I bought the Tameron 150-600 and Tameron 10-24 and pleased with them. For wide angle the 10-24 has a great range but down size is F 3.5-4.5 wich I can deal with

kemert

I can attest to the fact the ef-s 10-18 IS is sharp! Considerably better than a sigma 12-24 (f4.5-5.6) on FF! I sent the damn 12-24 back!