Help with Canon lens options

[neuroanatomist]

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

[Brendan7]

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.

[Brendan7]

Actually I just did some research and am really liking the EFS 15-85...

[peety3]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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

[Brendan7]

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.

[peety3]

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.

[Keith B]

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.