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

[w0lverine]

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 !

[neuroanatomist]

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

[Sean Setters]

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)

[HDNitehawk]

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: --->

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

[Daniel Browning]

"Far" portraits? Admit it, you

[w0lverine]

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.


--------

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&euro 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&euro.


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

[HDNitehawk]

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).

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

[w0lverine]

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.

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...

[ham]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.