$1300 Dollars which lense for the 7D

cc10d wrote in post #9174111
If you must have L, I would suggest the 16-35 2.8 L MII. That will get you into a bit better wide range, I always felt very limited by 24 or 28 on the crop cameras. It still leaves you with a use for your 28-75. I am fairly sure that once you are using your 7d for a while, the appeal of the full frame will dissapate some, and you my want to keep it, when you get the full frame. You will love that 7D, maybe as much as I do mine. I use the 17-55 2.8 IS and leave my beutiful 16 -35 in the drawer, Sold both my Tammy 28 -75 and my 24 -70L Both nice lenses. But as I said above, too long on the short end for me.

Ive thought about the 16-35 a lot. Its a bit out of my price range. But its a very good range. Its gives you the wide but also keeps the tammy around. Ill def give this a lot of thought.

If you're going FF for sure then I would get a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.

vipergts831 wrote in post #9173699
Ill be purchasing the 7D this coming tuesday and im wondering which lense to buy. I currently have the tamron 28-75 and was thinking of replacing it with the 24-70 L. I dont shoot anything really beyond say 100. I do portraits, sports, and landscapes (uwa i know). What do you guys think? fyi not interested in the 17-55 is i know its a good piece of glass but im going L on this purchase.

I sniff an L snob. A bigger l snob than even myself. The 17-55 is a GREAT PEICE OF GLASS! I hate my 24-70. It's not as sharp as the 17-55, and it lacks is and weights a Ton - not literally speaking! If I was to reown an aps-c camera, I'd get the 17-55 in a heartbeat and dump this 24-70.

And btw, Just because it's an l, doesn't mean it's everything. Look at the 50l.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

To get a killer pair, consider the 11-16 and the 17-55. That would be a great set that covers a huge range for travel and walk around. The 10-22 is not as good, though you have the range, the aperature is not constant, and it vignettes wide open. The 11-16 has minimal vignetting, and a constant aperature

Marloon wrote in post #9174642
I sniff an L snob. A bigger l snob than even myself. The 17-55 is a GREAT PEICE OF GLASS! I hate my 24-70. It's not as sharp as the 17-55, and it lacks is and weights a Ton - not literally speaking! If I was to reown an aps-c camera, I'd get the 17-55 in a heartbeat and dump this 24-70.

And btw, Just because it's an l, doesn't mean it's everything. Look at the 50l.

It has nothing to do with being a snob. It has a lot to do with the fact that ill be going FF in a year and a half to two. Now if i was staying aps-c for ever then of course the 17-55 is the best investment possible. However, whats great for one person isn't great for another. I would be the first to recommend the 17-55 to someone i know staying aps-c. I just know where im going in terms of bodies in the future. I apologize if it was stated in a wrong way wasn't my intention.

Bradfordguy wrote in post #9174567
If you're going FF for sure then I would get a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.

Thats definitley the route im thinking of taking. Might just get the 16-35 now (a bit out of my budget :confused. Save up some more and buy the 70-200 while keeping the tammy since i can use it on a FF.

16-35 seems like a weird range for FF. Why not a 24L, 35L, or 50L. Those are killer primes that will be fantastic on both crop and FF (or 1.3x)

vipergts831 wrote in post #9174737
It has nothing to do with being a snob. It has a lot to do with the fact that ill be going FF in a year and a half to two. Now if i was staying aps-c for ever then of course the 17-55 is the best investment possible. However, whats great for one person isn't great for another. I would be the first to recommend the 17-55 to someone i know staying aps-c. I just know where im going in terms of bodies in the future. I apologize if it was stated in a wrong way wasn't my intention.

A year and a half to two! Wow that's far off! Get the 17-55, the 24-70 has a higher chance of being upgraded than the 17-55. And the upgrade should
come soon. It's only appropriate.

I'm with the others who are telling you to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70L based on current need.

I, like you didn't want to buy crop glass for a long time... but for a different reason than you... I still shoot film and wanted as much of my kit to work on both platforms as possible. That is UNTIL I finally rented the 17-55 f/2.8 for a week for an event I had been asked to shoot. I ended up buying one a few months later. Its a wonderful piece of glass. Sure there is the occasional zoom creep, sure its not built like an L. But its as sharp as an L, the colors come out spectacular, the focus is f***ing fast, and the IS is a BIG helper. And once I added a filter to the front... its pretty much ready to face the elements.

Be aware that if you go with the 24-70L you're not getting much wider than your 28-75 f/2.8 (which according to most reports is a wonderful lens, I've never used one, but I'll take the majority's word for it), but it is A LOT more expensive and A LOT heavier. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM gives you a USABLE wide-end for your walk-around lens. Then sell the 28-75 f/2.8 eventually and use the money along with what you saved by getting the 17-55 over the 24-70L and pick up the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. That way you have a REAL UWA-Normal coverage @ f/2.8 with sharp solid glass.

When you upgrade to FF, whether its 1.5, 2, or 5 years, there will be a 2nd-ary market for the glass to unload. And to be fair, the 11-16 f/2.8 is used by many on 1.3x and FF @ differing focal ranges to great effect without vignetting (on APS-H (1.3x) it can be used from 12.5-16mm, on FF it can be used from 14-16mm... you can use the lens all the way down to 11mm on each without fear of mirror collision but be ready to do some cropping). People even opt to use the lens ALONG with the 16-35 f/2.8 MkII on FF and APS-H. But for APS-C its a no-brainer.

Honestly, since getting my 7D, almost all want for an APS-H or FF body has gone away. This camera works incredibly. The AreaAF is reminiscent, yet much better, than the implementation in my EOS-3. the AF locks faster and much more accurately with all my lenses right out of the box... I have yet to play with MLA, but simply haven't seen the need... its just THAT good. The 8fps is such a big jump from the 40D's 6.5fps especially when shooting sports and firing thru an entire action sequence (pitcher's motion, tennis swing, golf swing)... the 2 frames you get help a lot. But the camera isn't as weather sealed as a 1D3 or 1D4 or 1Ds3 (or the upcoming 1Ds4) - and if you're concerned about your lenses and the elements, you should be aware that any system is as good as its weakest link, and in your case it would be the 7D. So you expect to shoot in gale-force wind and hurricane rain conditions, buy some environmental protection for your gear - I got a KATA rain-hood for my 7D+70-200 f/4L IS for World Series Game 1 when rain was expected... I ended up shooting the whole night with that contraption.

Get the right gear now, for what you need now.

nureality wrote in post #9174983
I'm with the others who are telling you to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70L based on current need.

I, like you didn't want to buy crop glass for a long time... but for a different reason than you... I still shoot film and wanted as much of my kit to work on both platforms as possible. That is UNTIL I finally rented the 17-55 f/2.8 for a week for an event I had been asked to shoot. I ended up buying one a few months later. Its a wonderful piece of glass. Sure there is the occasional zoom creep, sure its not built like an L. But its as sharp as an L, the colors come out spectacular, the focus is f***ing fast, and the IS is a BIG helper. And once I added a filter to the front... its pretty much ready to face the elements.

Be aware that if you go with the 24-70L you're not getting much wider than your 28-75 f/2.8 (which according to most reports is a wonderful lens, I've never used one, but I'll take the majority's word for it), but it is A LOT more expensive and A LOT heavier. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM gives you a USABLE wide-end for your walk-around lens. Then sell the 28-75 f/2.8 eventually and use the money along with what you saved by getting the 17-55 over the 24-70L and pick up the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. That way you have a REAL UWA-Normal coverage @ f/2.8 with sharp solid glass.

When you upgrade to FF, whether its 1.5, 2, or 5 years, there will be a 2nd-ary market for the glass to unload. And to be fair, the 11-16 f/2.8 is used by many on 1.3x and FF @ differing focal ranges to great effect without vignetting (on APS-H (1.3x) it can be used from 12.5-16mm, on FF it can be used from 14-16mm... you can use the lens all the way down to 11mm on each without fear of mirror collision but be ready to do some cropping). People even opt to use the lens ALONG with the 16-35 f/2.8 MkII on FF and APS-H. But for APS-C its a no-brainer.

Honestly, since getting my 7D, almost all want for an APS-H or FF body has gone away. This camera works incredibly. The AreaAF is reminiscent, yet much better, than the implementation in my EOS-3. the AF locks faster and much more accurately with all my lenses right out of the box... I have yet to play with MLA, but simply haven't seen the need... its just THAT good. The 8fps is such a big jump from the 40D's 6.5fps especially when shooting sports and firing thru an entire action sequence (pitcher's motion, tennis swing, golf swing)... the 2 frames you get help a lot. But the camera isn't as weather sealed as a 1D3 or 1D4 or 1Ds3 (or the upcoming 1Ds4) - and if you're concerned about your lenses and the elements, you should be aware that any system is as good as its weakest link, and in your case it would be the 7D. So you expect to shoot in gale-force wind and hurricane rain conditions, buy some environmental protection for your gear - I got a KATA rain-hood for my 7D+70-200 f/4L IS for World Series Game 1 when rain was expected... I ended up shooting the whole night with that contraption.

Get the right gear now, for what you need now.

ditto. The 17-55 is beautiful. Be open minded about it, don't just snob it out because it isn't l and it isn't for ff. It's a fantastic Peice of glass, and most users here use one and love theirs.

Would you buy Beamer floormats and accessories for your civic thinking that in two years that you'd be there. A lot of people say that they will be upgrading to an ff and never really committing to it when time runs out. I plan on buying a 200 f2l in a yea or two, but I, too, am not sure if I'll give it up considering that there are other pieces of photography equiptment that I need; like a full on upgrade on lighting - hensel porty 12 + a whole wack of grip and modifiers. Sigh. I also need to spend for advertising and website portfolio. That'll be later in the next year.

get the 24-70, sell your tamron and 50 1.8 and get the 50 1.4 and be happy with a great two lens kit.

having owned both tamron and can lens, I would say the canon is a waste on a crop sensor. On full frame it makes a lot of sense, as the corner performance is a lot better. the only downside of tamron is that it does not focus as quickly or confidently esp in low light. However if I had money burning hole in my pocket like that, and wanted an L, I would get either the 16-35 or the 17-40. 16-35 is esp nice for video.

24-105 or 24-70 depends on the speed you need.

vipergts831 wrote in post #9174318
Your totally right. It wouldnt increase my capabilities at all but upgrade the lense itself nothing else. This is something that has crossed my mind. I have thought about selling the tammy which would help cushion the fall and frees up more funds for another possible purchase say in a month or so to cover the wider end.

Btw primes im torn, 35 or 85? On crop it makes more sense for the 35 but again that could be up to taste. What do you think?

Definitely 35 for a crop.