Debating which lens to buy

Hi,

I am upgrading from a 400D to a 7D and I am trying to figure out which lens will suit me the best. I want a lens which will give me some versatility and at this point my budget will only allow for a single L series lens.

I am more focused on outdoors work (things like the zoo etc.) and although I want to be able to use the camera in weddings etc. that sort of event is not my priority at this point.

I have my sights set on either the 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L IS, although I am open to other suggestions.

First question is, do these lenses go well with the 7D? I was recommended a 15-85mm EF-S IS to go with the 7D at a camera store but I dont like the idea of that. If I am going to be paying this much I at least want the nicer build quality of an L series. So, would 24-70 not be wide enough an a 1.6x body? I would really like a full frame 5D but I dont think I can stretch that far. Do I need to get something in the lower focal lenght range instead? (although if I do that I know I will want more zoom).

Secondly, how important is the IS with a relatively fast f/2.8 lens on a 7D body? Is it reason enough to go for the 24-105mm? The f/2.8 aperture appeals to me but I just do not know if the lack of IS will be a large issue... I will be mostly shooting handheld.

Finally, is there anything else I should know? Is the 7D + 24-70 f/2.8 a good well rounded kit that will meet my needs? I dont want to have big gaps forcing me to get another lens anytime soon so I want the best image quality/versatility combination that I can find. I want a camera/lens that can do the job wherever I go providing adequate zoom but not lacking too much in the wide range. If it helps, this is just for a personal use not professional use.

Cheers!

Hello there. Can you tell us what setup you have already? It would greatly help with our suggestions.

And oh by the way welcome to POTN

Jam.radonc wrote in post #10100067
Hello there. Can you tell us what setup you have already? It would greatly help with our suggestions.

And oh by the way welcome to POTN

Thanks

I currently have a 400D with the standard twin lens kit. I find that I usually want more zoom than the 18-55mm provides and the 75-300mm is really quite a mediocre lens. That was my first DSLR , I have had it for 2 years or so now and it is time to upgrade. I have also never had an IS lens (the 75-300mm really seems to need it I always felt).

I figure that if I am going to upgrade, I dont want to go in baby steps and keep having to replace my kit at each step. Hence I am looking at getting quite a big upgrade to the 7D and a nice L series lens.

Hi, welcome to the forum. If you use the "search" function (top right) you can find hundreds of threads on the topic HERE. I've owned multiple copies of both lenses. For versatility, the lens that makes the most sense to me is the neither L, rather, it's the 17-55/2.8IS. The reason for the earlier recommendation for the 15-85 was because the range is perfect for a 1.6 crop sensor (which is what both your 400D and 7D have) It's got an effective (if you were shooting film or Full Frame Sensor) of 24-135mm...and IS. Very nice focal length for a walkaround


The 24-70L is a heck of a lens. Mine is sharp, contrasty, fast AF and tough, it's constant 2.8 is nice and it's weatherproof, which can come in handy...I love it....But not on a 1.6 crop body, at least not if it's gonna be my main walkaround. For that, I need something that can go wider than 24mm.

The 24-105 is another fantastic lens, again, sharp, contrasty, fast AF and tough. The constant f4 is nice (better than a prosumer lens that might be f3.5 to 5.6) The IS evens the field (between it and the 24-70) out a bit for some styles of shooting. But it'll never be able to shoot at f/2.8 which (to me) makes it less versatile...and again 24mm (effectively 38mm) is just not wide enough for me.

Now, with the 17-55 you don't get "L" designation, but you do get...The sharpest of the three mentioned, blazing fast AF, with "L" glass inside. 17mm, constant 2.8 and IS. You can handhold this lens at 1/4 of a second. It only goes out to 55mm (but that's 88mm effectively which is decent) To me, without question it's the most versatile lens Canon makes for the 1.6 crop. You don't get the weatherproofing, the build isn't L (but it's pretty tough for an EF-S) and you need to make sure you put a UV filter on it to keep out dust particles.

I actually love all three lenses, they're great...But different horses for different courses.
Good Luck

Ah..you will find the the 17-55 is very popular here with good reasons. Good range, IS, 2.8 aperture and very sharp wide open. If you are using the 24-(insert number)mm exclusively you may find the 24mm in a tad too narrow for your wide capability.

The f2.8 compared to the f4 on the 24-105 is better for indoor uses if you compare the 24-70 to the 24-105. Both are excellent lenses.

If you are going FF sometime in the future then I'd get the 24-70 for now. The kit 18-55 IS is very good and very much underrated. This will cover your wide angle needs. Unless you want to splash a bit more and get the 17-40L.

Hope that helps.

It would feel a little strange to pay so much for a lense that is not an L series... It is more expensive than even the 24-70L (of course it does have IS on top). I know Image quality comes first but build quality and feel is also a factor for me

The EF-S mount is also something I do not really want. It seems it may limit the usefulness of the lens in the future (even though I dont plan on going to a full frame any time soon).

The 17-40 f/4L seems very cheap? Did you mean as an addition to the 24-70?

draculr wrote in post #10100216
The 17-40 f/4L seems very cheap? Did you mean as an addition to the 24-70?

Yes as an addition. The 17-40 is wonderful as an outdoor lens. Maybe not your cheapest L lens but near enough. For value for money I would say it would trump my 24L II and 85 L II (and that is saying a lot)

You might want to wait a few months though. Rumours has it that the 24-70 may come out later on with the IS version.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …photography/can​on-lenses/

the 17-55 is a great lens for crop. you can go through the all the hoopla you want but in the end what was designed for crop was the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens. The 24-70L is best suited on full frame. The only thing wrong with the 17-55 is that its not a F2.0 lens (in my dreams, right?, lol).

Fpr outdoor walk around get the 70-300 is do

If you would like to see what the FF is like, I think you could stick to your 400D for now, and get a used 5D classic just to get the feel of it. Later on you will be sure if you should go for a 5D II or a 7D.

If that idea doesn't seem like a good one, you can just go for the 7D, but ... from what I understood you like the higher zoom range and you want to shoot animals in a zoo, etc. I think the 70mm range is not really going to be enough for such shots. Just like most of this forum members, I would suggest the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a walkaround lens for a crop frame, and for a zoom (as it seems that you need one) I would say the 70-200 f/4L IS would work the best. If you want them new, the set of both 17-55 and 70-200 would cost some $2000, but you could probably get some used ones cheaper.

In any case, if you think you will switch to a FF in the future, I wouldn't invest in EF-S lenses (like the 17-55). Also the 24-105 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/4L IS set new is going to be the same price or a tiny bit cheaper.

From someone using a 24-105mm on a 1.6 crop, I find it a great general purpose lens. And I often utilise the 105 end, which I think I would miss if I had of bought the 24-70mm instead. The f2.8 of the 24-70 would be handy in low light, but you mention you will mostly shoot outdoors. The IS in the 24-105mm (or any IS for that matter) is a huge advantage.

As for the wide end, there have been a couple of times I would have liked to be able to go wider. Only for the odd landscape I do, or when I needed to do some interior shots of a house one day. I may get the 17-40 down the track, but it hasn't been a big enough issue for me to race out and get it. I will be getting the 70-200 f2.8 Mk II first to get some reach at the other end.

As peter.pan mentioned, I wouldn't get an EF-S lens if going full frame was a possibility for you at some point. My suggestion is the 24-105mm. I know what you mean about wanting a good build in a lens, and this wont disappoint. Also, if you can find it somewhere as a package with a camera body, the lens will work out much cheaper than if you buy it seperately.

Let us know what you decide!

70-200mm F4 IS to replace your 75-300, then go from there. I use my 24-105 as my standard walk around on my 7D and 5DII.

draculr wrote in post #10100216
It would feel a little strange to pay so much for a lense that is not an L series... It is more expensive than even the 24-70L (of course it does have IS on top). I know Image quality comes first but build quality and feel is also a factor for me

The EF-S mount is also something I do not really want. It seems it may limit the usefulness of the lens in the future (even though I dont plan on going to a full frame any time soon).

The 17-40 f/4L seems very cheap? Did you mean as an addition to the 24-70?

It isn't more expensive, it's less expensive....But I understand wanting the L.... I don't understand how it would limit it's "usefulness" in the future if you're not planning on going full frame.
Just saying, for most folks, 38mm is too narrow for the wide end of a zoom.
All that said the 24-70 will have stellar IQ on any body.
Good luck.....

Since you like big steps, you should consider stretching your budget and getting a 5Dii + 24-105. You will save on the 24-105, but you will still have to pay more than 7D + 24-105.

sebr wrote in post #10102918
Since you like big steps, you should consider stretching your budget and getting a 5Dii + 24-105. You will save on the 24-105, but you will still have to pay more than 7D + 24-105.

Lots of good replies here, I have been playing around with the 18-55 on my 400D and can see that there is a big difference between 18mm and 24mm on a 1.6x body that it may be an issue. I guess at this time I need to keep reading and trying to see how far I can get with my budget.

I am beginning to think about the 5Dii, I am not 100% sure if I need or want a FF. In the future I may want to get a bigger zoom lens and having a 1.6x body will be an advantage then. In any case, I was wondering if perhaps a 5Dii with a cheaper lens such as the 17-40 would be any good? Since I would rather have to get an additional lens later rather than replacing anything that I buy, especially the camera body.

Edit - there seems to actually not be much to save by getting the 17-40 lens over the 24-105