Help with Canon lens options

[Brendan7]

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

[Sheiky]

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.

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...

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

[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.