what to get for first L!

After getting the 7d i find that my sigma 17-70 is not enough anymore. with that lens i find my self saying: i wish i had more reach, i wish i had IS, and i wish this was faster.

i usually just do around the town shooting, and shoot in restaurants when me and my friends get together (at least twice a week). rite now iam split between the 24-70 f2.8l or the 24-104 f4l IS.

with the 24-70l i get the speed with out the reach. the cons would be around $150 more.

with the 24-104l IS i get, IS, an extended reach, i heard its one of canon's sharpest lens's, con's are not as fast. but with that $150 saving i could justify getting a canon 430exII.

this is my first lens towards my kit. my kit will eventually include tokina 11-16, which ever i choose from the above, and a 70-200 f4L IS. then i probably get a prime or two.

what do you guys think? i can only get one of them.

dont get the L, get the 17-55. im sure a ton of people will say that.

romeo26 wrote in post #8792827
After getting the 7d i find that my sigma 17-70 is not enough anymore. with that lens i find my self saying: i wish i had more reach, i wish i had IS, and i wish this was faster.

i usually just do around the town shooting, and shoot in restaurants when me and my friends get together (at least twice a week). rite now iam split between the 24-70 f2.8l or the 24-104 f4l IS.

with the 24-70l i get the speed with out the reach. the cons would be around $150 more.

with the 24-104l IS i get, IS, an extended reach, i heard its one of canon's sharpest lens's, con's are not as fast. but with that $150 saving i could justify getting a canon 430exII.

this is my first lens towards my kit. my kit will eventually include tokina 11-16, which ever i choose from the above, and a 70-200 f4L IS. then i probably get a prime or two.

what do you guys think? i can only get one of them.

That lands him speed and IS, but yields less reach than what he's working with currently. Sounds like you'll have to choose 2 of the 3 things you want, so which are more important? Remember that with IS you gain several stops (but you have to consider subject movement too).

11-16
17-55
70-200 f4 is.

boom you are golden with very sharp lenses. i had the 70-200 2.8 is when i had my 40d. it was too heavy to carry all of these 3 around.. the f4 is should relieve some weight

I'll recommend the 17-55 2.8 IS as well. But, if you're set on one of the two L's, you need to just decide which is more important - reach, weight, and "IS" or less distortion and faster aperture. Both are excellent. I still think that the 17-55 is the perfect lens for a crop body though - unless you don't like the focal length.

I'm a Sigma hater (personal reasons) but I would keep the lens you have (if it focuses properly). From tests and sample images a good copy of that lens is very sharp. You lose about 1 stop to the 17-55 and of course the IS.

So I would keep that lens and add something longer like the 70-200/2.8 non IS or 4IS. Or something like the Canon 28/1.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 20/2.8, or if you "must" have an L lens the 35/1.4 or 24/1.4.

Gene

Marloon wrote in post #8792882
11-16
17-55
70-200 f4 is.

boom you are golden with very sharp lenses. i had the 70-200 2.8 is when i had my 40d. it was too heavy to carry all of these 3 around.. the f4 is should relieve some weight

Bingo! That is the ticket for an APS-C cropper. The 24-70 and 24-105, while nice lenses, don't go wide enough on the cropper.

n1as wrote in post #8792982
Bingo! That is the ticket for an APS-C cropper. The 24-70 and 24-105, while nice lenses, don't go wide enough on the cropper.

If you get any of the wide angles, then the 24 not being wide enough is kind of a moot point. Unless you like the term "walkaround" and want a wide angle included in that term.

In fact I would even say 17mm on aps-c isn't wide enough for some.

binlerne wrote in post #8793044
If you get any of the wide angles, then the 24 not being wide enough is kind of a moot point. Unless you like the term "walkaround" and want a wide angle included in that term.

In fact I would even say 17mm on aps-c isn't wide enough for some.

x2, 17mm is the wide end of a "walkaround".

binlerne, nice avatar...too bad they let us down sunday.

I'd stay with your Sigma for now and get the 70-200 first.
Out of " i wish i had more reach, i wish i had IS, and i wish this was faster."
The 24-70 will only be faster, but then you'll be lacking the wide end.
The 24-105 would give a bit more reach and IS, but isn't really faster and you lose the wide end again.

With a 17-70 on hand right now, I'd buy the 70-200 next, then the 11-16, and finally sell the 17-70 to pick up a 24-70.

wow i totally forgot about the 17-55 f2.8 IS. time to research for that lens!

i dont plan on ever selling my sigma. before i get my 11-16. I know i cant have everything i ask for but iam thinking the 17-55 is a good compramise. at least with a 1 min search. its not "must have an L" its more like "i like the L quality, and sharpness."

ill update this after i do some research on the 17-55, to see if that answered my questions. but this has me worried

from: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=8740396&po​stcount=11

I think this: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=8792492&po​stcount=32 is a good take on IS failure.

romeo26 wrote in post #8793169
wow i totally forgot about the 17-55 f2.8 IS. time to research for that lens!

i dont plan on ever selling my sigma. before i get my 11-16. I know i cant have everything i ask for but iam thinking the 17-55 is a good compramise. at least with a 1 min search. its not "must have an L" its more like "i like the L quality, and sharpness."

ill update this after i do some research on the 17-55, to see if that answered my questions. but this has me worried

from: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=8740396&po​stcount=11

Just pick one. They are all good.

Doesn't the individual determine what's "walkaround"? I keep my 135L on my camera most of the time. Some people don't care for "wide". How can anyone say that 24 isn't wide enough on a crop when there are plenty of people happy w/ their 24-70L and 24-105L's and crop bodies?

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now...

lgunnz wrote in post #8793645
Doesn't the individual determine what's "walkaround"? I keep my 135L on my camera most of the time. Some people don't care for "wide". How can anyone say that 24 isn't wide enough on a crop when there are plenty of people happy w/ their 24-70L and 24-105L's and crop bodies?

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now...

Depends on where i'm walking.