Renewing all my gear, assorting lenses to my 7D !

Hi guys,


I've read many reviews on this excellent site, which I found thorough and very helpful. Now, I have to make a choice over which lenses to buy. I own a Canon 400D, the crappy 18-55 F4-5.6 and the valuable 55-250 IS, both Canon.I'm seriously considering upgrading to a 7D (or 7D mk. II if announced). I don't think I would need a full-frame 5D mk.II and am not quite ready to spend 2k€ on a naked camera. Now that I've decided which camera to get... I have to choose my lenses. And there comes the hard part.


Firstly, what I like to shoot as a photographer : Semi-macro ('Wildlife' with blurry background), Portraits, Landscapes, sometimes sports or far portaits. I mainly shoot *without* a tripod, except for certain conditions (water, fireworks). That's my style, I like to wander around and not be disturbed by a tripod or monopod. My budget ranges from 3,000 to 3,500€ (which, considering euro taxes, would be 3,000 to 3,500$). The 7D is worth 1,300€ naked, that leaves 1,700-2,200€ for the lenses.


I considered the following, all Canon :


Wide-angle / Multi-purpose


24-70 F/2.8 L USM. 1,050€. Pros : Very good indoor capabilities, depth of field. Cons : ?
24-105 F/4 L IS USM. 950€. Pros : Stabilization, wide focal range, sharpness. Cons : 1 stop darker


Zoom / Telezoom


70-200 F/2.8 L USM. 1,000€. Pros : Bokeh, background blur, indoor. Cons : ?
70-200 F/4 L IS USM. 1,000€. Pros : sharpness, stabilization. Cons : 1 stop darker (bis)
70-300 F/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens Review. 1,300€. Pros : Excellent focal range, stabilization. Cons : Price, maximum aperture


My dream lens would be the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II but then again, I'm not ready to spend 2k€ on a third of my setup...


What do you guys think would suit my needs ?
Thanks in advance !

The 7D is a great camera.


Forgive me, but I don't see a wide angle lens on your list. 24mm on APS-C is equivalent to 38mm, which means 24-xx zooms are not wide angle. Check your shots with the 400D and 18-55mm, and if you use the 18-24mm range a bit you're going to miss that - especially since you mention landscapes.


IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. If you'll primarily use outdoors, the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS can also be considered. Both lenses deliver optical quality equivalent to the two L zooms you mention, when used on APS-C. If you're set on a 24-xx zoom, you either need to be willing to use your current 'crappy' 18-55mm, or get an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or 3rd party equivalent in that range.


I have a tough time saying any f/2.8 lens has 'very good indoor capabilities'. Yes, it's the fastest zoom available, but it's still two stops slower than something like an 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4L. When shooting indoors with f/2.8 on a 7D, I often need a Speedlite (I prefer to avoid ISO 3200 on the 7D).


For the tele end, once again, see your use of the 55-250mm. If 250mm is often not long enough, consider the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, or even the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (the latter is the lens I use most often on my 7D, although that's a skewed viewpoint since I use a 5DII for almost everything except when I need the longest focal lengths I can get). If you mostly shoot in the 70-200mm range, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is a great choice.


No primes on your list? The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS would be one to consider, given what you like to shoot.


Good luck with yoru decisions!


--John

Wide-angle / Multi-purpose


17-55mm f/2.8 IS


Zoom / Telezoom


70-200mm f/4 L IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 L (It's a toss-up)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

What do you guys think would suit my needs ?

---

You said it was valuable, are you replacing your 55-250 IS?


It sounds from what you like to shoot the longer focal lengths are your choice.


If that's the case, with your budget I would rethink this statement: --->

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

My dream lens would be the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II but then again, I'm not ready to spend 2k€ on a third of my setup...

---

The 70-200 F2.8 IS II, which you ruled out is what I would go for. Sure its 1/3 of the cost of your setup, but it will be what your setup is built around so it should be the majority of the cost. Of the list you have, I would forget the rest and get the best.


I haven't looked at prices where you are from, but where I amwhat you stated as a budget would buy the 70-200mm II and the 7D. If I had to save some money I would try to get a refurbished 7D and the 70-200mm II.


If you had to go short, neitherof the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be my choice. I wouldrecommend the EFS 17-55mm F2.8 IS. I went on vacation a few weeks ago and before we left I gave my 7D to my brother and I bought the 17-55mm to go with it. The lens did a wonderful job for him. I have owned both the 24-70 and the 24-105 so I do have hands on exp on all three of these now. If you have to have an L for wide, I have a 16-35mm L II and in my opinion (my copyat least)it gives better IQ than the 24-70 and the 24-105.


I have no first hand experience with the other three zoom's, but I would go for the 70-300mm if it were me. It is newer in production and some of the coatings and such they use now are superior and give you better IQ than the older lenses.I wouldn't go for a non IS in this range so the 70-200mm non IS would be my last choice.


Good Luck

"Far" portraits? Admit it, you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The 7D is a great camera. (..) Good luck with yoru decisions!--John

---

You are absolutely right about my wrong definition of wide-angle. I tend to use that as opposed to zoom or telezoom, my mistake ! That being said, my favorite non-zoom pictured are in the 30-50mm range.


Is the 15-85 really that good (EDIT: Just read the review, impressive !) ? I like its focal range, plus it can be bought with the 7D. Actually, I ruled out EF-S in case in case I would go for 5D or better in a few years. But hey, I've done 5 years with my 400D, I can save up till that moment arrives...


I don't do many indoors, i'm more interested in very steep depth of field (more relevant on a zoom, right ?).


Thank you very much for making me ask myself the right questions, that's mainly why I posted here in the first place. You are once again right, I tend to use (very) long focals. I like wildlife and details. That's also why I need a good multi-purpose short lens (like the 15-85). I also considered primes, mainly the Sigma 150mm macro and also 100mm Canon. I'll save that up for when my budget will allow !


Again, thank you very much, you've been of great help.


--------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehaw

You said it was valuable, are you replacing
your 55-250 IS? It sounds from what you like to shoot the longer focal
lengths are your choice. If that's the case, with your budget I would
rethink this statement

---

Hey,


I am indeed replacing my 55-250. I find it too soft and I want to go
up in terms of image and build quality. I may have badly expressed my
self : By valuable I meant it's very good for the price (150€) but
doesn't suit my needs anymore.


Since you're the second person recommending the 17-55, I might start
considering it more seriously ! Plus it would allow me to also buy
70-200 IS II while keeping the budget tight ! It produces fantastic
pictures, but I'm afraid I will lack 200+mm focals...


Thanks !


----


@Daniel Browning : I'm not a paparazzi, i'm talking about animal portraits (or people in the street, yeah, I plead guilty [:$]).





What would you guys think if I did the following :


Canon 7D + 15-85 IS = 2,000€
70-200 IS II = 2,000€
or
70-300 = 1,300€


Total = 4,000€ (3,300€).


I must say I love the pictures taken with the 70-200 f/2.8... But it's really expensive and heavy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

Canon 7D + 15-85 IS = 2,000€
70-200 IS II = 2,000€

---

Not to shabby of a kit. There has been allot debate in the forum between the 17-55mm and 15-85mm. I always let IQ be my deciding factor rather than focal length, might be worth a comparison. But if getting the savings on a Kit and makes the deal work financially, over getting the body and lens separate, and it gets me the 70-200mm F2.8L II then that's the way I go. Doing the math equation the 70-200mm F2.8L II > ALL (in my opinion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

or
70-300 = 1,300€

---

Buy a 1.4 extender and give up a little IQ at the long end with the 70-200mm F2.8L II. But there is one other issue to think about, the 70-200mm F2.8L is a brick, I don't mind carrying it because of the quality of pics I can get with it. If weight and compaction is a real factor you might consider the 70-300 instead. I have often thought about getting one just to carry wherever I go just in case an opportunity arises.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Not to shabby of a kit. There has been allot debate in the forum between the 17-55mm and 15-85mm. I always let IQ be my deciding factor rather than focal length, might be worth a comparison. But if getting the savings on a Kit and makes the deal work financially, over getting the body and lens separate, and it gets me the 70-200mm F2.8L II then that's the way I go. Doing the math equation the 70-200mm F2.8L II > ALL (in my opinion).

---

I may be narrow-minded or just plain dumb, but I like the idea of covering all focal lengths. I think i'm definitely up for the 15-85.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Buy a 1.4 extender and give up a little IQ at the long end with the 70-200mm F2.8L II. But there is one other issue to think about, the 70-200mm F2.8L is a brick, I don't mind carrying it because of the quality of pics I can get with it. If weight and compaction is a real factor you might consider the 70-300 instead. I have often thought about getting one just to carry wherever I go just in case an opportunity arises. Rick

---

I do travel a lot and like big focal lengths...


To be honest, I have a big concern about a 2k€ lens : isn't it overkill or too much of change ? Everyone seems to love it, though...

One thing I would say is whilst the 15-85mm gives you a nicer maximum wide angle than the 17-55mm, it doesn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

To be honest, I have a big concern about a 2k€ lens : isn't it overkill or too much of change ? Everyone seems to love it, though...

---

I actually don't use many zoom's because I like the quality and range I can get out of the primes. the 70-200mm F2.8L II is the exception. I like to do large prints, and of course the larger you print the more the IQ shows. On the short ends I use a 24mm and 35mm L.


You might ask yourself what kind of quality you want or need to produce. The differences in IQ of most of these lenses are very subtle and can cost you hunderds more. Most people couldn't tell the difference in your work. It seems like when you get to the top gear you pay allot to get a little improvement from one lens to the next. So for many people it might well be overkill.

I had the 70-200 IS and it was a very good lens that I tended to leave at home, because of the weight. I bought the 70-300mm L and couldn

So, two suggestions:


7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer), smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to shoot in M mode.


7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Narrower focal range, bigger and heavier, more expensive, fast and constant f/2.8 through the range for better low light utility and much better OOF blur for portraits.


Personally, I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

So, two suggestions:


7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer), smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to shoot in M mode.


7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Narrower focal range, bigger and heavier, more expensive, fast and constant f/2.8 through the range for better low light utility and much better OOF blur for portraits.


Personally, I'd choose the latter (in fact, I *did* choose the latter) - a fast aperture is worth the tradeoffs in cost and weight, to me. However, with the cost savings from the former set, you could add a nice prime such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light work.

---

I wouldn't have summarized the situation better =)


Considering my previous kit (18-55 F/3.5-5.6 and 55-250 F/4.5-5.6)n I can't say I know what working under a big aperture is. That's why the 70-200 is appealing (not appalling as written in the first place, my bad) Again, very heavy (remember I do mostly handheld photography) and very expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U<span class="user-name"

<span>]I had the 70-200 IS and it was a very good lens that I tended to
leave at home, because of the weight. I bought the 70-300mm L and
couldn't be happier, it goes with me everywhere plus 2 wide primes. The
IS on the 70-300 L is very good and it works well indoors with good
light and very good outside for portrait or landscape.


Rick's arguments about the quality of the 70-200 2.8L II are compelling and it is the best, without question.


Your considerations of the 15-85 and 70-300L will give you a very,
very good base kit and will get you out there taking photos with the
tools to produce very good images.


Go for it and consider a fast prime down the road a bit later.

---

Thank you for your opinion. I am indeed concerned about its weight, I like to go out a lot, "off the cuff" (is that even used in english ?) - I mean, without planning.





In the end, here's what I chose :
Come winter sales time (around december-jan-fev here), if the 7D is discounted with the 15-85 (i'm guessing 1,500 instead of 2,000&euro;), i'll buy it with the 70-200 IS II.
If not, i'll go for the 70-300 and buy a prime later on.





I'd like to thank you all for your time, your kindness and for being constructively argumentative.

A couple of quick thoughts:

Ok, that is weird, I wrote a longer post and only the first line made it. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF
70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer),
smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture
therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to
shoot in M mode.

---

That's my exact kit (plus
niftyfifty f/1.8, and a lot of older MF gear), and I don't think i'd trade it for anything else. OK,
so the 17-55 is faster than the 15-85, and arguably sharper, but
bigger, heavier, and more expensive.


The 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x II
teleconverter you might get for a smidge more than the 70-300L, from
everything i've read the 70-300L is a mosquito's moustache sharper, but
it's definitely more compact and only a bit heavier vs the 70-200f/4L IS
+ TC (ease of changing to 200-300mm range in dusty environments, big
winner for 70-300L for me).


OK, maybe i would trade it for the 17-55 + 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. but not paying the extra &euro;1060 for it (it may be worth the money, i just can't afford it)


.


For the shooting in M mode, i've never had a problem.
Mostly I work in Av (and that's mainly because you can't set +/- EV in M
mode with AutoISO), but even in M you just have to frame first, then
get exposure right. Zooming after framing only makes you need to re-set
exposure if you're wide-open.


.


Macro with 70-300L is great
and easy with my Kenko Tubes (MF only, AF just hunts). Of course I would
like a 100mm L macro (who wouldn't?) but can't justify the expense
right now.


.


As for neuro's 2 choices, they're &euro;1990 vs
&euro;3050 (lens only, body extra), and that's not really fair, who wouldn't
take the f/2.8 double if they had the cash?


i'd be more inclined
to pair the 15-85 + 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II (&euro;2840) vs the 17-55 + 70-300L
(&euro;2200) prices are closer that way (a bit more at least), and it sets
out a choice between fast wide and long all-round length, vs all-round
wide and faster tele.


Then if you've still got the budget you can add the 100mm macro for &euro;485 or 100mm L macro for &euro;820. (and I hear good things about the Sigma 150mm macro, IS and weather sealed to boot). Or even the MP-E 65 for &euro;960, but you have to be *really* dedicated to macro for that one...

I'd go with the 17-55mm and 70-200mm II kit as my first choice. And the 15-85mm and 70-200mm II as my second. To me the 70-300mm L was designed for a diferent group of people, bigger focal length range and lighter. More of a travel type lens were DOF is not so important. The 70-200mm II is much better suited for potriats, sports and photogernalism were thinner DOF isimportant. For me personally two stops at the long is a huge disadvatage. I have held a 70-200mm f2.8 IS original and it's not that heavy. Compared to the 55-250mm it's a beast but that lens is very light and most other pro lenses feel heavy in comparison. Hell, the 300mm f/2.8 is considered light by super telephoto standards!


Is it overkill, mabye. But the way I look at it is you will grow into it and won't have to upgrade untill the III comes out in 10+ years! And think you will apriciate the extra capabilty this lens has right from the get go.


Cheers,


John.

Thank you for you interest in my case.


To be honest, I don

If you

I used to own the 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it to get the 70-300L IS. While I miss the constant f/4 sometimes, the 70-300 is, IMHO, a better lens because it is much mor versatile and just as good optically -- even at 300mm. it

@DrCrouble : Thank you for your answer.


What do you mean by refurbished ? Used lens ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

DrCrouble [/b]]If you're certain about the camera and wide lens, I say go ahead and buy it, use them for a few weeks to get used to them.
Then go hire all your other options on the long end for a few days, take them out and test against each other.

---

That's actually a very good idea. It will be the best way to know what lens suits my needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

DrCrouble [/b]]If you're really dedicated to macro more than sports and wildlife, go
one of the cheaper zoom teles (70-200f4LIS, 70-200f2.8L, 70-300L) and
get either the canon 100macroL or sigma 150mm macro (new version a month
old, not the older one)..

---

I really love wildlife (or people) with a great DOF and cannot afford a big prime (like 400 or 600).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

I used to own the 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it to
get the 70-300L IS. While I miss the constant f/4 sometimes, the 70-300
is, IMHO, a better lens because it is much mor versatile and just as
good optically -- even at 300mm. it's heavier, yes, but that doesn't
bother me because it is also 50% longer in reach. My 70-300 probably
spends more time on my camera than any other lens.

---

Versatility is
important to me too !


----


I found a site renting the 70-200 IS II for 100&euro;/week. Do you think I could rent it with my 400D or would it hurt my perception of the 70-200 ?
I can't afford the 7D before christmas but I want to rent the 70-200 !

Dollars or Euros are critical to most of us, if you are waiting till december for the 7D, I would just keep saving and get the camera and whatever wide zoom you choose to grab and then rent the 70-200 and the 70-300. Compare images, compare costs and grab whatever you can afford that takes the shots you are happiest with. If you rent the 70-200, rent 70-300 at the same time and take plenty of pictures that way you can compare apples with apples.


A 7D and a 17-55 or a 7d and a 15-85 is a big investment for most of us, so grab whatever combo the wallet allows and then rent both of your longer zooms and decide which one you are happiest with. You will be happy with both. In the long run it gets down to your budget and what you are prepared to spend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0lverine

@DrCrouble : Thank you for your answer.


What do you mean by refurbished ? Used lens ?

---

In the US, Canon USA sells refurbished lenses direct to consumers on their website. These are lenses returned for one reason or another, and brought up to spec by Canon service. Any manufacturing line produces some lemons, but refurbs are all good. However, I'm not sure about the statement that they come with the full warranty - the Canon USA website indicates that they come with a 90 day warranty.


In the US, Canon also distributes some refurbished gear to Adorama - and when Adorama sells refurbs, they offer a 1 year warranty (but it's an Adorama warranty, meaning you have to send it to them, not Canon, even is you happen to live next door to a Canon service center. In the EU, Canon apparently distributes their refurbs via eBay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Any manufacturing line produces some lemons, but refurbs are all good.

---

You would think they would be. I know that Canon checks all the refurbs out when they send them out.


But the one thing they don't check out are the excessive compulsive people they sell to. Which makes me wonder, how will Canon ishonor itsreturn policy? I have seen dozens of threads that could been filed under "Did I get a good copy of XXXX lens?". Most of the time it is just buyers fear, and weeks later they love the lens. Occasionally the lens doesn't perform as they think it should and they want to send it back. This is one reason I like B&amp;H, returningis very easy. I can't sayB&amp;H a "no questions asked policy" but one of the reasons you can use to send it back on their questionnaire is "I just changed my mind", so that's good. I wonder if the "I just changed my mind" option would fly with Canon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

But the one thing they don't check out are the excessive compulsive people they sell to.

---

Like who? What are you accusing me of? Just because I test out new lenses on a QA-77-3 ISO 12233-based test chart does not mean I'm compulsive. [8-|] [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Like who? What are you accusing me of? Just because I test out new lenses on a QA-77-3 ISO 12233-based test chart does not mean I'm compulsive.

---

OUCH....I was actually looking in the mirror when I wrote that, I didn't even think you might be that way. [:P]


Which one of those do I need though? The $358 one or the $1027 one. I need help....maybe not the kind of help I can find here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Which one of those do I need though? The $358 one or the $1027 one. I need help....maybe not the kind of help I can find here.

---

Help, indeed. [:P]


I have the -3 ($600) version. Bryan seems to use the -4 version of this same chart for his ISO 12233 crops, and the smaller ones for the long focal length lenses (at 500mm, you need to be ~30' from the -3 chart to fill the frame). The -3 chart can just barely fill the frame of the 16-35mm at 16mm and minimum focal distance (a bit less than the spec of 11"). Any wider and the -4 chart would be required. They come from Applied Image as a rolled-up printout, I had mine flat-mounted at an art framing place.