Help with Canon lens options
Hi All,
Right now I'm trying to cover the wideangle to tele part of my kit. I know I may be trying to kill too many birds with one stone, but I don't have the cash to buy an L prime for every focal length.I've come up with a couple of options; all help is very much appreciated. Feel free to suggest other possibilities not listed below. Total budget = $2500.
1. EF 24-105 + 70-200 f/4L IS. Cost - $2100. I like this combo but the 38mm wideangle is a problem and a constant f/4 aperture all around would require the purchase of an 85 f/1.8.
2. EF 16-35 +70-200 f/4L IS. Cost - $2500. Is it realistic to use a 16-35 as a general purpose lens?
3. EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM. Cost - $2500. I would have to rent a general purpose lens, but I feel w/ the 2.8 aperture I could shoot faster sports, indoor events and portraits, etc.
I could think of endless other possibilities, but I'll say I'm looking to shoot landscapes, portraits indoors and out, and would like to have some tele reach to complement my 300 f/4. Is there purpose in having a 70-200 f/4 to complement a 300 f/4 and 24-105? I don't want to buy a lens and never use it.
Thanks to all for all your help. It's nice to have some (much, much) smarter people around here to help.
brendan
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Hey man,
I guess that or you plan to go FF any time? Or you still think the 17-55 has a huge dust-issue or lack of build quality??[:P]
Normally I would recommend that lens on crop-body for general use pretty much over any other lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
but I'll say I'm looking to shoot landscapes, portraits indoors and out, and would like to have some tele reach to complement my 300 f/4
Your choices really don't make a lot of sense then. I believe you look too much at lensspecifications instead of lens utilization's.
What I mean is:
option 1, why the 24-105 and say you'd require a low-light lens. I would change the 24-105 for a 24-70 or a 17-55 in that case. But I'm not sure what your future plans are regarding to upgrading to FF. A 17-55 is a really great lens and I think it worked better on a crop-body than the 24-70 did for me. A 24-105 doesn't really make sense if you want to shoot landscapes. 24mm on crop is something I wouldn't advice for.
option 2, I don't think you'll be happy with the 16-35 as a general lens. The focal length difference is just too short. And again it's way more expensive than the wonderful 17-55 and it pretty much does the same and more (35-55mm range, IS) on a crop-body.
option 3, nothing wrong with that I guess, it's a wonderful lens I noticed by other users reviews. But...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
but I feel w/ the 2.8 aperture I could shoot faster sports, indoor events and portraits, etc.
Sports ok, portraits ok, but 70-200 indoors is more tricky.
What I'm trying to say is that for the money you can spend you can get a lot more for use on a crop-body. Which I assume you will hang on to since you shoot a lot of birds [A]
My honest opinion: if I had the money that you have right now and use a crop-body I would buy a 10-22 for landscapes, 17-55 for general use and a 70-200 f$L IS for the complementation of your telelens.
But that's just me! [;)]
Jan
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Hi Brendan,
To borrow your thought from another thread, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is really 'meant for FF' - with that lens, you're really paying a big premium for the sharpness at the corners, which are cropped away on your 7D. Also, my experience with the EF-S 17-55mm suggests that 35mm is not long enough for use as a 'general purpose lens' even on a crop body. Likewise, in my experience 24mm is not wide enough for a'general purpose lens' on a crop body.
I'd suggest:
4. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 + EF70-200 f/4L IS. Cost - $2250
5. EF 17-40mm f/4L +EF70-200 f/4L IS? Cost - $1950
Your self-confessed '<span style="color: red;"]Ldisease' might preclude option 4 [;)], but the 17-55mm really is the best general purpose lens for a 1.6x body. Really.
The latter option would leave plenty in your budget for the EF 85mm f/1.8 or EF 50mm f/1.4 with hood (since you need to buy those separately for non-L lenses).
Maybe you can wait for the lens rebates which usually start in May/June.
Good luck!
--John
Re: Help with Canon lens options
John and Jan, thanks for your advice.
If the 17-55 really is the best lens in the range, maybe I'll try that. Anyway, I do plan on moving to FF (actually, adding a FF body to complement the 7D) but right now that's not really an option.
Now, I don't want two EF-S lenses. I can deal with one, though. If I get the 17-55 I won't really need anything wider so the 10-22, the great lens that it is, won't be on the table. So I'm thinking maybe 17-55 + 70-200 (f/4 OR f/2.8)...I feel that whenever I choose something I give up something I wanted. I shoot more outdoors than indoors and I have considered that I won't need the f/2.8 aperture, so another option is the 24-105 for general purpose and until a 70-200 f/2.8 is affordable I'd add the 85mm f/1.8 for the sake of not having a constant f/4 lineup (thanks Neuro for the advice in Denise's thread). And if I do end up traveling to the Yellowstones of the world I'd rent the 14 f/2.8.
So right now it's a contest between the 17-55 and 24-105. I'll probably rent each and decide from there.
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Actually I just did some research and am really liking the EFS 15-85...
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Actually I just did some research and am really liking the EFS 15-85...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Really? LensRentals says it's way overpriced for what you get: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ef-s-15-85mm-f3.5-5.6-is-usm/for-canon
Looking back on your original post, my first thought was "pick your NEXT lens", and don't worry about your next-next lens.
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Actually I just did some research and am really liking the EFS 15-85...
Let me start with two words: "variable aperture." I suspect that if you do get that lens, you're in for some disappointment, especially as a self-confessed aperture junkie. From Bryan's review: "The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens is not a fast lens and has a variable maximum aperture. Here is how the max aperture step-down goes: from 15-17mm = f/3.5, 18-26mm = f/4.0, 27-37mm = f/4.5, 38-60mm = f/5.0 and from 61-85mm = f/5.6." Longer than 27mm, and you're already slower than your 300mm prime.
You mentioned indoor portraits - not a great use for theEF-S 15-85mm, you'd likely be shooting those in the 50-85mm part of the range, and f/5-f/5.6 isn't going to do very well for OOF blur at portrait distances with that focal length. Also, since I know you shoot manual much of the time, you're really not going to like that a variable aperture changes the necessary exposure as you zoom.
Let me provide one more plug for f/2.8, with the caveat that this is with a lens that's not ideal for the general purpose lens you have in mind. I captured this grab-shot of a visitor in our yard earlier this tonight. The pic was shot with your option #3 lens, theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM. The shot was taken 30 minutes after sunset (pretty darn dark, stars were already visible in the deep blue/black skies). This washandheld at 200mm and1/13 second!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Hop.jpg[/img]
EOS 7D,EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM @ 200mm, f/2.8, 1/13 s, ISO 3200
That's a shot that wouldn't have been possible with a slower aperture (nor without an excellent IS system in the lens and a body that performs decently at ISO 3200). Did I mention that the 70-200 MkII is an amazing lens?!?
Anyway, back to the point - I don't think you'll be happy with anything wider than f/4, and for your general purpose lens, I'd really recommend going with f/2.8 if you plan to use it indoors, or want the typical portrait OOF blur, even outdoors. At focal lengths less than 100mm, you need a rather wide aperture to get that desirable OOF blur.
I'd go back to your original debate of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 vs. EF 24-105mm f/4L, and as I stated, my opinion there is in favor of the 17-55mm. For myself, I'm still considering theEF 24-105mm f/4L, but that's only because I already have theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. If I had to choose between them, it would be theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, no question.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Peety3, thanks for that link; I guess there's something there Bryan didn't see. *(is that possible?)*
John, that shot is.....crazy. Amazing. Thanks for the advice.
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Peety3, thanks for that link; I guess there's something there Bryan didn't see. *(is that possible?)*
Oddly, but yes it does seem possible. If nothing else, Bryan doesn't seem to drool over the 85L like I or so many others do. It's #2 on his portrait recommendations and #5 on his wedding recommendations, while LensRentals says it's so addictive that folks' tears have smeared the return label. I used it last weekend during a bicycling event; if you know its limits the results can be fantastic.
Re: Help with Canon lens options
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Oddly, but yes it does seem possible. If nothing else, Bryan doesn't seem to drool over the 85L like I or so many others do. It's #2 on his portrait recommendations and #5 on his wedding recommendations, while LensRentals says it's so addictive that folks' tears have smeared the return label. I used it last weekend during a bicycling event; if you know its limits the results can be fantastic.
Same thing with the 35L. It isn't very high on any lists.
While TDP is my main reference when investigated a new purchase, I usually read Roger's Take to seal or brake the deal.
