Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Hi Danny,

With a 1.6 crop factor, the 24-70 will deliver equivalent focal length of 38-112mm. I've found that to be a great focal length range for "walk around" shooting where you will probably have many more uncooperative, rather than cooperative, subjects, as well as landscapes, buildings, etc. This will include the desirable 80-100mm portrait range. It will also be long enough to isolate subjects with some nice shallow depth of field, especially at f2.8. I use a Tamron 24-70 on my Canon full frame and it kind of lives there.
I'd go with that vs. the very fine 16-35mm (which I own) for a "walk around" lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

This might help.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Canon's+16-35+f%2F2.8+vs+24-70+f%2F2.8

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
You say you plan to add a FF someday, which would indicate you plan to keep the 7DII, so the lens being EF-S shouldn't be an issue.

Mark W Loc: Camden, Maine

Of course it's nice and enjoyable to have a general discussion and get opinions but the beat way to "research" a lens is to either read or watch videos about the lens you're interested in. You'll find plenty of information on lenses ranging from highly technical information to hands on field use. There's enough out there to keep you busy for quite some time.

Danny Nash

Thank you - good information.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

One of the main reasons for social media sites is discussion. The OP is asking for opinions from others on what they believe to be a good general purpose lens and why. This is research. The OP may use this information to narrow the list of potential lenses to do more in depth research on. Telling the OP there is plenty of information is about as helpful as telling them digital cameras don't require film.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

My choice would be the 24-70 1:2.8.

Mark W Loc: Camden, Maine

He was asking about "specific" lenses. Your analogy makes no sense.quote=rmorrison1116]One of the main reasons for social media sites is discussion. The OP is asking for opinions from others on what they believe to be a good general purpose lens and why. This is research. The OP may use this information to narrow the list of potential lenses to do more in depth research on. Telling the OP there is plenty of information is about as helpful as telling them digital cameras don't require film.[/quote]

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

It is hard to get around the fact that both a wide and a tele lens are commonly needed for all-purpose shooting. This means either a heavier, bulky lens or two lenses. For cityscapes and street shooting, I tend to see in wide angle, but not always. In nature, it can go either way, but for wildlife it is almost always desirable to have the longest lens possible. Like Ansel Adams, most of us seldom go for "normal" lenses--long or short lenses add a selective aspect. But consider the traditional photojournalists of old, with their Graflex press cameras. They nearly always used a 135mm or 127mm lens for all newspaper work. This was a slightly wide normal lens, just wide enough to add a margin for error in composing and parallax. It would take some effort to learn to use a normal lens for all things, yes?

When the mountain will not come to Mohammad, Mohammad must go to the mountain. What I would like is a wide lens that is very light and compact (not necessarily superfast), and a long lens that is also light and compact (not necessarily superfast). There are designs for this, but they are neither zooms nor commercially popular (or available). A dialyte lens can be tiny, yet magnificently sharp (Kodak 203mm f7.7, Fujinon A 240mm f8, or the Schneider Angulon design instead). I would rather have several lenses the size of walnuts in my pockets rather that a few big, fast zooms. I would also rather have a Maserati than an old Taurus.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It would be a toss-up between a 16-35 f/2.8 or a 24-70mm f/2.8. There is also a great new 24-105mm f/4, but, well, it slows down the AF system that you bought that camera for. And it IS f/4. It's also heavy. I had its predecessor for just one week before swapping it for a 24-70.

With your current lens selection, I'd probably want BOTH a 16-35 f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. Then the next lens would be a 70-200 f/2.8. Those three lenses are the mainstays of most pros. We call them the "holy trilogy" of full frame lenses. They'll all be 1.6x crop-factored on your 7D II, but you already have that 10-18mm, so you're covered.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

OK, here's my opinion. I like my 18-200 on my Nikon D7000 crop sensor camera for my walk around lens. It grabs most everything that I take for snapshots.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Either of those lenses would work well on your 7DII.

But in either case you'll be unnecessarily spending roughly an extra $1000, just to get a larger, heavier lens to lug around, losing IS and not getting any better image quality.

You'd be better served getting an EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM ($850.... $830 + $20 Vello lens hood). Yes, this is a "crop only" EF-S lens. That being the case it's a perfect match to your camera, though you may want or need to trade it in or sell it and replace it some day, if/when you actually get a FF camera.

Compare to $2200 for an EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM III or $1500 for the still-available II version (less range of focal lengths and no IS, in either case).... Or $1750 for a 24-70mm f2.8L USM II (also no IS).

OTOH you might want to keep an EF-S 17-55mm if you continue to use an APS-C camera in your kit, alongside a FF in the future.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I like and have them both. I believe they are both necessary for my photography. I don't have the Mark II or Mark III just the originals. I will be upgrading to the 16-35 f/2.8 Mark III as soon as Canon relaxes the price a tad.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

On my D810 I use a 24-70 f/2.8. On My D500 I use my 24-120 f/4 (This has quickly become my favorite walking around combo).

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

The 24-105 is a great lens and the new version is improved also. That is our walk around lens; second choice is the 16-35 version II