Which lens would you buy next?

Hi everyone, Which lens would you buy next if you were in my situation? Just looking for some opinions.

I'm currently taking photos purely as a hobby. I started out a couple of years ago with a 60D and 28-135 / 50 1.8 ii. I recently upgraded to the 7d mk ii and bought the 24-70 ii and the 70-200 2.8 IS ii. I like shooting a little bit of everything. The 24-70 stays on my camera most of the time but I'd like to get started on landscape photography as well. I was looking into a wide angle lens and was wondering what you guys would recommend.

I really like the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but it seems like people are divided on its af performance. Im also looking at the canon 16-35 and 17-40.

EF-S lenses are fine, I plan on keeping my 7d2 even if I upgrade to FF in the future.

Thank you!

On the less expensive side:
10-18 IS - newer with IS
10-22 - excellent WA crop lens
17-40 - Also can be used on FF
18-55 IS STM

Step up to the next level:
16-35 f4 IS - if you can swing it this is what I'd purchase. Excellent lens. You'll be able to use it on BOTH bodies in the future.

It sounds to me like you are putting the cart before the horse. I don't know how most folks select hardware, but I prefer to have a use in mind, then make my choice of appropriate tools. Selecting a tool first, then looking for something to do with it just seems backward.

Example:
I don't like the IQ, focus speed, aperture, or whatever of a particular tool in my kit. I now have a need. Say I don't like the f/5.6 aperture at the long end of my 28-135. What I really want most at 135mm is aperture. My choice is made for me by the list of available upgrades. I bought the 135L.

If what I don't like about the long end of my 28-135 is the 135 limitation, I would make a different choice. Do I want a zoom or a prime? What aperture do I need? Is IS important? Notice that the 135L that worked so well solving the above problem is irrelevant to this problem. Better choices may be the 200 f/2 IS, or the 100-400L II.

The first step in selecting a new lens should be deciding what your current lens doesn't do for you. Then search what lenses will do that for you. Then make your choice according to your own priorities.

If I had your equipment, I'd buy the 10-18 and 18-55 STM lenses for video on the 7D Mark II. I'd also buy a 85 f/1.8 because it is just a fantastic lens. That is what I'd do. That does not mean it is something you should do.

minwooooo wrote in post #17783465
Hi everyone, ... Just looking for some opinions.

... upgraded to the 7d mk ii and bought the 24-70 ii and the 70-200 2.8 IS ii.

Thank you!

OK here is my two cents and worth every penny. What you have is as good as it gets. There is nothing better so your next lens must fill a gap or need. Right?

Two lenses come to mind, actually three but two are a toss up. I have some 40 lenses of all types and brands including the two you have. Lately, I have been considering the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens. For you it does fill a focal length gap and offers pretty darn good performance. Nice price, too. So that is one suggestion.

The other is either Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens or the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens. Either or, doesn't matter as they are very similar. I would also mention the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens but it is more expensive and more difficult to use but it the best of these three options. It is my go to super tele.

And you'er welcome.

The comments on here are confusing me. You clearly state that you want to try some landscape shots, perfect. Let's figure out a UWA for you. I don't think a 150-600 (or any other telephoto) would be beneficial to you since you said that you shoot with your 24-70 the majority of the time, and that you want to work on landscape. If you want to shoot telephoto landscape shots, you already have one of the best lenses Canon makes in the 70-200 IS II. So unless you feel focal length limited, a super telephoto would not help you.

The first choice would be the 10-22 Canon. Often considered one of the best EF-S lenses out there. You get a truly UWA lens, that will last you for years and provide fantastic IQ. Your next best choice would be the 16-35 F4. From everyones praises, might be on of the best recent canon lenses created. The only problem here its that while 16mm is much wider than 24 on a crop, it might not be wide enough for your intentions. Only you can decide that. You could always purchase a used 10-18 to see how wide you need, and then decide to keep it or sell it and buy something else.

The 17-40 is good, but the 16-35 blows it out of the water. Many people also say that the 10-22 on a crop is better IQ than the 17-40 on crop. I can't comment on that, but it would be something to look into. The Samyang 14mm F2.8 is a fantastic IQ lens, and SUPER wide on FF, decently wide on crop. However, it is a manual focus lens. But how else are you going to get 14mm F2.8 without spending thousands of dollars.

You have lots of possibilities, with a few very good choices. In your case I would go 10-22 or 16-35 F4. The 16-35 will be a build quality much closer to your current lenses, but it would be as wide. If 16mm is wide enough for you, pick the 16-35. If it isn't, buy the 10-22. Either way you can't go wrong in the IQ department.

You can do landscape with almost any lens depending on focal length.

I prefer using either my TSE 17mm or my TSE 24mm.

If you want, you can use the shift feature on the lens and stitch the photos together makes for great looking photos .


I own a T3I with a EF-S 10 -22 mm UWA lens.
I own a 5DII and my TSE lenses, the EF-S 10 - 22mm lens never gets used


If I want a wide angle lens on my T3i then I bypass the EF-S 10-22mm lens and put on one of my TSE lenses.

OP, if you want to do extreme close-ups you really should buy the MPE-65. On the other hand, if spying on your neighbors from a mile away is your thing, the 1200mm f/5.6 is about the best lens going.

I find the specific lens suggestions in this thread entertaining. If you want..., buy.... How can they be interpreted as anything but completely meaning less until the OP defines a need?

This one is more of pet peeve than anything else. It makes my skin crawl when someone refers to either the 24-70 II or the 70-200 II as "the best". They are most certainly the best thing going, if large, heavy, relatively slow, expensive zooms are what you need. If not, they aren't even on your list of potential candidates. The best tool for any job is defined by the job, not by the tool. Rant complete. Now back to your regular reading.

The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is highly regarded. Canon's 10-22 f4 is very good also. I went for the 11-16 because of the extra stop.

10mm on a crop yields a field of view similar to 16mm on FF, for comparison sake.

I've heard that the Tokina will work on a FF at 16mm only, FWIW. The Canon will not work on FF.

Just a nitpicky detail. The 10-22 is f/3.5-4.5. Some folks use the 10-22 on full frame. I am not sure how they mount it, but I wouldn't take that chance with my mirror.

Bassat wrote in post #17783837
Just a nitpicky detail. The 10-22 is f/3.5-4.5. Some folks use the 10-22 on full frame. I am not sure how they mount it, but I wouldn't take that chance with my mirror.

They shave down the rubber donut in the back of the lens so it clears the mirror.

I would also suggest either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16. The former gives you a wider range of focal lengths and has good flare control, while the latter provides a wide, fixed f/2.8 across the zoom range but shows a lot of flare if pointed at a bright light source. So if strictly for landscape use I think the 10-22 would be the better choice, but if you have any interest in night landscapes and want to capture stars I'd pick the 11-16 and try to work around the flare if shooting towards the Sun.

The Canon 10-18 STM is also supposed to be a good lens and is less expensive than either the 10-22 or 11-16. I just don't have any experience with it so can't really make a recommendation.

Seems like an easy answer... EF-S 10-22

Bassat wrote in post #17783575
I find the specific lens suggestions in this thread entertaining. If you want..., buy.... How can they be interpreted as anything but completely meaning less until the OP defines a need?

he said he wants something for landscapes, and mentioned 3 lenses wider than 24mm...so i think it's safe to say he's looking for a wide-angle, or ultra wide angle

OP, just about any of the UWA lenses work well for landscapes, they've all got their pro's and cons...with having 24mm as your widest right now, i'd get a lens that goes from 10-2Xmm...so the most likely choice is the canon 10-22mm

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17783857
They shave down the rubber donut in the back of the lens so it clears the mirror.

no need to shave anything down, you can pull the piece of plastic right out in two seconds, and it will mount to a FF camera...the rear of the lens may still hit the mirror if you're at 10mm, but i don't think anyone has ever had a lens actually damage the mirror...

I've had the 10-22 and currently have the 10-18. From a pure IQ standpoint, the 10-22 is the better choice. It also has a more useful focal length range. The 18-22 range kept me from mounting a longer lens frequently. The main advantages of the 10-18 are STM and IS, both of which come in really handy if you do a fair amount of video. I believe the 10-18 vignettes more and is a bit slower at the wide end. It also costs a lot less. I sold my 10-22 for $375 and got the 10-18 at Canons big Halloween refurbished blowout for $169.

DreDaze wrote in post #17783894
...

no need to shave anything down, you can pull the piece of plastic right out in two seconds, and it will mount to a FF camera...the rear of the lens may still hit the mirror if you're at 10mm, but i don't think anyone has ever had a lens actually damage the mirror...

Does that trick work with all efs lenses? Kind of a dumb question, but interesting anyway. Even if you could, would you mount a 18-55 on your full frame?

Bassat wrote in post #17783933
Does that trick work with all efs lenses? Kind of a dumb question, but interesting anyway. Even if you could, would you mount a 18-55 on your full frame?

the metal mount EF-S lenses i believe can all pull the baffle out...but mounting just a straight Ef-S lens will typically give a ton of vignetting...i just mounted my 18-135STM on my 5D, and it vignettes all the way to 135mm...the reason people do it with the 10-22mm, is they can then mount a TC on the lens(this was before there was an ef-s TC), and use it on a FF with no vignetting...or they can mount it on a 1.3X and use it around 12mm without much vignette