Unsure which lens to replace my second 17-55

bigarchi wrote in post #9540869
Each and every point, including those located farthest from the center, is a standard-precision cross-type sensor ... with effective maximum apertures of f/5.6 or faster.
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=3049

so from the sound of this, 2.8 or faster gets you high precision diagonal center sensors, but they are all cross type with f/5.6 or faster lenses.

Ahhh, good catch. I keep getting Canon's marketing confused. On the 1D bodies the outer AF points turn into high precision when used with f2.8 lenses. Nice to see that the 7D is cross type standard precision which is much better than before for the 1.6 bodies and even the 5D II.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. 24-105 seems to be a popular choice, "the brick" next most popular but for some reason I just don't want a 24-70. I do find IS useful, 105mm at 1/30th isn't hand holdable IMHO, that's how dark it is sometimes.

The only times it's really dark are in the ceremony, I don't use the 30 F1.4 there, I use the 17-55. Zooms are more flexible.

form wrote in post #9538532
The #1 solution is to stop dropping your lenses/equipment.

Having a grumpy day again? Perhaps you should try to contribute rather than just ranting.

pcunite wrote in post #9540447
Tim,
I don't recommend the 24-105 as Canon's focus system is designed around f2.8 lenses to achieve critical focus. Also f4 in the dark is no fun. This is just my personal findings... it may be different for some.

bigarchi wrote in post #9540507
oh, and i think the 7D has all cross type focus points for the f4 lens.. but then again, your assistant is probably NOT using your 7D!

Yeah it apparently has additional features at F2.8, but either i'd be using it outside or my assistant would be using it. Any shots she gets are a bonus, not required, so no problem.

throw me in with the group that likes the 24-105. If I wanna go lite for an e-shoot or something, i'll take the 40D, 10-22, and 24-105. It is a combo that works on the 1.6 crop sensor, but I'd want a 70-200 in 1.3 and ff.

The 24-70 will not shatter as easily as the 17-55, but they both will decentre elements with the same kinds of impact. I dropped a 24-70 only 2 inches from the ground and it totally decentered two elements according to the tech. $220 to repair. So I really do not consider any of the three lenses to be tanks.

It's funny you bring up f/4. I too strobe receptions and shoot around f/4 anyways to get more than one person in focus. (f/5.6-8 on FF) So I've been considering a 70-200 f/4.

My second shooter uses the 24-105 as a one-lens-does-all solution. It works well for that. Only occasionally takes a wide or the 200 2.8L.

picturecrazy wrote in post #9542617
...So I've been considering a 70-200 f/4.

The 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens - only slight downside is the bokeh is not as smooth as the f4 non-IS, or the f2.8 IS.

My only real gripe with Nikon is the lack of a decent range of f4 lenses.

Rob

Looks like the 24-105 F4L it is, thanks everyone

tim wrote in post #9542818
Looks like the 24-105 F4L it is, thanks everyone

Awesome. I think you'll like the lens. My only complaint is that in super low light it is a lot slower to lock focus than the 17-55. But we're talking like super low light.

RobKirkwood wrote in post #9542771
The 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens - only slight downside is the bokeh is not as smooth as the f4 non-IS, or the f2.8 IS.

My only real gripe with Nikon is the lack of a decent range of f4 lenses.

Rob

Yeah, I think I'd really dig the lower weight and size. I was getting some serious back and shoulder issues for the last couple years with the 2.8, which is exactly why I bought a 135 f/2 and 200 2.8L. But then I realized I was shooting at f/4 at the widest, so I kinda smacked my forehead in a "gosh I'm an idiot" moment. The 70-200 f/4 is like C$1400 cheaper than the other two.

If I could throw in that I use a 24-70 for about 80% of a wedding, with the 70-200 for about 15% and the 10-22 and 50 & 85mm primes the rest of the time. A mate of mine that I often shoot with has the 24-105 and we have both found that the 24-70 is always sharper at comparable f stops. So with your combo either/or would suit - whether you wanted IS or softer OOF.

Having said that - I had to put my 24-70 into Canon Aus for a recal as it was often back-focussing when shooting group shots at the wide end when the subjects were more than 3 metres away. It was away for 2 weeks, but since it has returned it has truly been stellar! No more back-focus issues.

At times (i.e. late evening / nights or indoors) I wish for IS, but I just add around 1-3 stops of ISO to speed everything up. And the loosely reported fragility of the 17-55 EF-S is what has always stopped me from buying one...

ken.

kencas wrote in post #9544661
If I could throw in that I use a 24-70 for about 80% of a wedding, with the 70-200 for about 15% and the 10-22 and 50 & 85mm primes the rest of the time. A mate of mine that I often shoot with has the 24-105 and we have both found that the 24-70 is always sharper at comparable f stops. So with your combo either/or would suit - whether you wanted IS or softer OOF.

Having said that - I had to put my 24-70 into Canon Aus for a recal as it was often back-focussing when shooting group shots at the wide end when the subjects were more than 3 metres away. It was away for 2 weeks, but since it has returned it has truly been stellar! No more back-focus issues.

At times (i.e. late evening / nights or indoors) I wish for IS, but I just add around 1-3 stops of ISO to speed everything up. And the loosely reported fragility of the 17-55 EF-S is what has always stopped me from buying one...

ken.

Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this. This is exactly what happened to all but one (6 or 7 copies I've lost count) of mine. Except Canon canada doesn't seem to be able to fix anything. I heard many reports that fixing the wide end messes up the long end. After many years of struggling with this lens, I've decided to be very happy with the 17-55, 24-105, and Nikon 28-70. None of those lenses give me any grief!

picturecrazy wrote in post #9544722
Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this.

Well - I'm glad that I made someone's day!!!

The 24-70 is such a hard mistress... There are so many reports of bad ones out there that it was at the front of my mind when I bought mine. So for the first 2 shoots I was trying so hard to convince myself that it was my technique and not the lense, etc etc etc. But when I had had enough of my own mind games I set it up on a tripod with mirror lockup, cable release, manual settings, and then compared it with my kit 17-85 - that incidentally blew the 24-70 out of the water for clarity at the same f stops, so I was pretty miffed. And that's when it went off to Canon. Before it came back I had resolved that it would have only one chance to be reformed, otherwise off it would go to be replaced by a 17-55, but now it is simply great.

So yeah - hard times to work out which to get. If you get a good copy, it is stellar. If not, you will hate it and want to kill all who suggested it to you...

ken

picturecrazy wrote in post #9544722
Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this. This is exactly what happened to all but one (6 or 7 copies I've lost count) of mine. Except Canon canada doesn't seem to be able to fix anything. I heard many reports that fixing the wide end messes up the long end. After many years of struggling with this lens, I've decided to be very happy with the 17-55, 24-105, and Nikon 28-70. None of those lenses give me any grief!

Did you ever send it to Toshio at Brunswick Camera Repairs in the US? He says he can do 50% better than Canon's best technicians, and from what people say on other forums he's being modest. Apparently he's a wizard at calibration. I'm considering sending him my stuff in winter.

picturecrazy wrote in post #9543872
Awesome. I think you'll like the lens. My only complaint is that in super low light it is a lot slower to lock focus than the 17-55. But we're talking like super low light.

Yeah, I think I'd really dig the lower weight and size. I was getting some serious back and shoulder issues for the last couple years with the 2.8, which is exactly why I bought a 135 f/2 and 200 2.8L. But then I realized I was shooting at f/4 at the widest, so I kinda smacked my forehead in a "gosh I'm an idiot" moment. The 70-200 f/4 is like C$1400 cheaper than the other two.

kencas wrote in post #9544661
If I could throw in that I use a 24-70 for about 80% of a wedding, with the 70-200 for about 15% and the 10-22 and 50 & 85mm primes the rest of the time. A mate of mine that I often shoot with has the 24-105 and we have both found that the 24-70 is always sharper at comparable f stops. So with your combo either/or would suit - whether you wanted IS or softer OOF.

Having said that - I had to put my 24-70 into Canon Aus for a recal as it was often back-focussing when shooting group shots at the wide end when the subjects were more than 3 metres away. It was away for 2 weeks, but since it has returned it has truly been stellar! No more back-focus issues.

At times (i.e. late evening / nights or indoors) I wish for IS, but I just add around 1-3 stops of ISO to speed everything up. And the loosely reported fragility of the 17-55 EF-S is what has always stopped me from buying one...

ken.

I'll still have a 17-55 so it doesn't really matter, this is really just for a back/assistant lens. If it's really dark i'll use the Sigma

I have a friend staying who has a 5D and 24-105 which I have full access to for a few months, so once I get my 7D back i'll have a play. Or maybe i'll buy one tomorrow. Either way, i've got plenty of gear but more backups are good.

tim wrote in post #9544782
Did you ever send it to Toshio at Brunswick Camera Repairs in the US? He says he can do 50% better than Canon's best technicians, and from what people say on other forums he's being modest. Apparently he's a wizard at calibration. I'm considering sending him my stuff in winter.

Tim whats his contact information for future references?

vipergts831 wrote in post #9559995
Tim whats his contact information for future references?

Toshio
TF Camera Repair
27 Brunswick Woods Dr
East Brunswick, NJ
(732) 238-8806

I'm about to send him one of my 40Ds and my 200L. The two don't play together so nicely.

Oh and I ordered a 24-105L, I got it new for US$900 from a member of the forum

awesome. Hope you like it!