Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: A lens for my 7D

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    542

    Default A lens for my 7D

    Ive been out of the loop for a while now, and looking at options for a lens to go with my 7d I just purchased.
    Im hoping for a little advice (i am doing my own research aswell) from all you Canon system users.
    A little info to narrow it down:

    I want a GOOD all rounder! Will be doing some journalist style work, some motorsport stuff (off track, pit action etc), people shots, out n about type stuff.
    My budget is around the $1500 mark.
    I will eventually buy lenses for specific work but for now want something I can leave on the camera for a while.
    So far im looking at the 24-70 2.8L (a bit over my budget) and the 24-105 4L....
    Is there anything else from maybe a third party brand that would suit...?

    Thanks in advance for any info or advice

    Tim

  2. #2

    Default

    I assume you have no immediate plans to go full frame? So we can include ef-s lenses

    If 24mm is wide enough then the two you have mentioned are good.

    Also look at the canon EF-S 17-55f2.8IS, and EF-S 15-85 IS

    Other brands , sigma and tamron both do 17-50f2.8 zooms with and without IS.

    I guess your after more quality than an 18-135 or 18-200.

    $1500 would get a tamron 17-50 and a 70-200f4L....(or so)
    Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wellingtown
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    ..or the 24-70L i'm selling for $1300. (well within your budget) *wink*

    But the 24-105 is a good all-rounder too, cheaper, with the added bonus of IS. As long as you don't mind not having a wide-ish lens.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Yes id prefer an L lens if possible, i was kind of steering towards the 24-105 to be honest. I cant find many bad reviews of it.
    When I get more into some sport work I do for my design ill get a 70-200L or something along those lines. For now I just want a QUALITY lens that I could, for instance take on holiday and use all round. Or walk around an even and shoot people, and still objects etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    542

    Default

    I also like the idea of having IS

  6. #6

    Default

    I still think the 17-55 is the best lens for a crop. f2.8 is quite handy and it has IS.

    24-105 is about the same size and weight, better built, different range, stop slower.

    I couldnt ever cope with 24 on a crop as the wide end, but thats personal choice.
    Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    AKL
    Posts
    46

    Default

    If you're talking about the ideal lens for 7D, I'd say either 17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-105 f/4 IS (depending on your shooting style).
    If you tend to shoot landscape & low light then go for 17-55. If you like to zoom in more, go for 24-105.

    For 17-55, don't be fooled by the non-L moniker, it's a high quality lens.. I think the only reason why Canon didnt slap the "L" tag for it is because it's an EF-S lens.

    In the end, you can't go wrong with either lenses

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Great thanks guys, will look into the 17-55 and the 24-105, Cheers!

  9. #9

    Default

    17-55 has zoom creep a bit and you have to buy a lens hood yourself, get the canon one its worth it.


    24-70L has the best bokeh out of them all though, it is a heavy and large lump with no IS.
    Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dunedin, NZ
    Posts
    886

    Default

    The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 IS could be an option? For crop I'd the either the canon 17-55 F2.8 IS or the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 IS
    Canon 6D Gripped | Canon 24-70 f2.8 L ii | Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM | Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM | Gitzo Basalt Explorer 3 | Canon Speedlite 600EX's ST-E3-RT| Lightroom 5 |

  11. #11

    Default

    Yeah the tamron looks good.

    Downsides are vignetting (tho not on crop!) and onion ring specular hilites/bokeh from the moulded aspherical elements.
    Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    153

    Default

    When using a crop camera my main 2 lenses were the 10-22 and the 24-105. They complemented each other wonderfully. I never got too excited with the 17-55 2.8 - and to be honest, in the same vein, I have never managed to get too excited with the 24-70 2.8 on full frame OR crop. To the point I cant remember the last time it was used as opposed to played with. The 24-105 is most certainly my most used lens according to lightroom, which credits it with over 50,000 images. The 24-105 was always frustratingly narrow at its shortest end on the crop sensor, but it gave good reach. The IS is very effective in it - was more effective than the original 70-200IS system I felt. Often shot at 1/4 second hand held with no blur.

    The 17-85 is in many ways its "crop cousin" but in reality its far from it. Indeed, its quality is only middle of the road in my opinion. I tend to often shoot around F4 - F5.6, and the 24-104 works well at both.

    I found that the 24-70 was too compromised in terms of weight and limited range when compared to a couple of primes - and at least a full stop slower. Without IS this was challenging to get my head around, and as such, in situations IS wont help, I go for primes.

    Its interesting that the 17-40 which I never used on a crop camera gets used extensively on full frame, far more than my 10-22 did but its more or less equal in terms of field of view. One of those things - it just feels "right".


    Remember though, what I found worked for me may well not work for the next person. Indeed, a friend has stated he is only too happy to stick with crop sensor cameras, and has invested heavily in EF-S glass in spite of his financial situation being able to comfortably support a full frame body and lenses. Hes a very good photographer in his chosen fields of interest. I chose the other route, and now have a few bits of EF-s glass to sell as whilst I still have a crop body, its only a spare for the occasional times I am silly enough to do paid work.

    I guess that you should be asking yourself this question - is this lens supposed to be a "one size fits all" lens, or, is it part of what will become a much more encompassing kit? I ask this because you may have to accept compromise now if you want it to not become redundant in the future - as many of my lenses have been! I have a whole kit or more of gear in my office I never, ever use. I know you have sort of answered this question in your original post, but what is your timeframe?

    Edit : Maybe an 18-135 or 18-200 IS could be a good lens which will cover your needs in reasonable light if your not overly critical. The 50 1.8 you have will do low light but kind of not with much flexibility.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    AKL
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riley989 View Post
    The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 IS could be an option? For crop I'd the either the canon 17-55 F2.8 IS or the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 IS
    I've used the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 IS.. pretty good lens. Definitely a step up from the kit lens but I'd say Canon 17-55 is way better.
    (oh the sigma died...focus motor broken..)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dunedin, NZ
    Posts
    886

    Default

    I think the 24-70 probably becomes more use full when you have a 70-200 as well. I find 17mm not wide enough on a crop so can't imagine being stuck with 24mm as my widest.
    Canon 6D Gripped | Canon 24-70 f2.8 L ii | Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM | Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM | Gitzo Basalt Explorer 3 | Canon Speedlite 600EX's ST-E3-RT| Lightroom 5 |

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peedee View Post
    The 17-85 is in many ways its "crop cousin" but in reality its far from it. Indeed, its quality is only middle of the road in my opinion. I tend to often shoot around F4 - F5.6, and the 24-104 works well at both.
    17-85 was a downscaled 28-135IS and just as poor , dont confuse it with the excellent 15-85 though!

    I agree a 10-22 and 24-105 sounds a good split. But for me I wanted the zoom to be a single lens solution to most of my shooting and with a 24-xx I would always have needed to take a second lens out. most of my landscapes are shot 17-22mm on crop unless they are a seascape, even wider shots I just shoot multiple longer shots and stitch.

    On the upside theres a ton of great lenses to go for.

    On the downside there isnt one that will do everything (as per usual).
    Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dubai/Waikato
    Posts
    4,403

    Default

    If you're just starting out with Canon, the kit lens wouldn't be a bad lens to have as well.

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/electronics...-487941291.htm
    Canon 5DIII | 7D | 16-35mm f2.8L II | 17-40mm f4L | 24mm f1.4L II | 50mm f1.2L | 85mm f1.2L II | 70-200mm f2.8L II | 300mm f2.8L IS II | 1.4x III | 2x III | 580EX II

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    4,649

    Default

    My wife has a 15-85 on her 40d and so far I've been really impressed with it. You could probably pick one up used for around $800-900. This would leave plenty of room for a prime too. Maybe a 35 f2 or an 85 f1.8.
    Canon > 5DIII | 17-40 L | 35 L | 24-105 L | 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L | 100 L | 400 f/2.8 IS II L | 600 EX-RT | 1.4x TC III | 2x TC III

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arthurs Point, Queenstown
    Posts
    241

    Default

    I had the 24 - 105mm as my only lens for a long time and served me beautifully in pretty much most scenarios. Now I have a few more it still is the on camera lens for most of my stuff - just so handy and I'm happy with the results. Next lens for me will be the new 70 - 200mm f2.8 II.
    5D Mark III, 7DGripped, 30DGripped, Canon 70 - 200 F2.8 IS II, Tokina AF 11-16mm F2.8, Sigma 30mmF1.4, Canon 50mm F1.4 USM, Canon 24-105mm F4L IS, Speedlite 430ex ii and other stuff.

    http://jimpollardgoesclick.com

    https://www.facebook.com/jimpollardgoesclick

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Wow thanks for all the great info people have pretty much decided on the 24-105. Will hopefully pick it up this weekend so I can get into it thanks again for the great replies. Always handy to have advice from those who actually use them.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    491

    Default

    I'm in pretty much the same boat. A good quality walk around lens would be nice to have.

    After walking around Raro for a week, I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather be able to go wide than go tight. My 18-55 was my on-camera lens for most of the trip. The majority of shots were probably in the 18-35mm range. I switched to the 55-250 a couple of times for certain shots, but didn't feel the need to use it much. I would have appreciated something wider than 18mm a few times though!

    Whilst the 24-105 sounds lovely, for me I just don't think it would be wide enough. So staying with Canon, I guess the options are the 17-55 and 15-85. Both sound like good lenses. IQ on the 17-55 would be better, but the 15-85 has a better range?

    I'm leaning towards the 17-55 at the moment. The only problem with it, is that you still really need to carry at least 3 lenses. Something wider and something longer.

    Tim, can you let us know how you go with the 24-105 if you pick it up? Would be interested in your opinion of it, since you've probably gone through the same decision process as me.

    ~p

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Dunedin, NZ
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pearlyred View Post
    The only problem with it, is that you still really need to carry at least 3 lenses. Something wider and something longer.


    ~p
    I found this the problem no matter what lens I use, I ended up just buying a lowepro passport sling bag which has just enough room for two spare lens with enough room left for a light jacket, drink bottle and phone/keys/wallet etc.
    Canon 6D Gripped | Canon 24-70 f2.8 L ii | Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM | Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM | Gitzo Basalt Explorer 3 | Canon Speedlite 600EX's ST-E3-RT| Lightroom 5 |

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Indeed, I have a Lowepro Slingshot 300 as my "light" carry around bag. I comfortably carry a professional size body, with any lens I tend to want attached, a flash unit, and or 3 other lenses. I only need to open the "side" opening to change between the 70-200 and either of the other 2 normal sized lenses ( 24-105 and 17-40 normally ). I can also fit a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 or similar in there too, and still have a little room in the other compartment if I want extra stuff.

    Certainly is nothing like my Trekker pro AW, but then, its lighter, far smaller, and generally less frustrating as to get stuff out I dont have to take it off.

    Only problem is its not suitable for more difficult walks/tramping etc being it has the sling style strap.

  23. #23
    stic Guest

    Default

    When my 17-85 caught the focus of death bug, i went and replaced it with an 18-135, and was pleasantly surprised with it. It's a pretty good lens for the money, wide enough for most normal work, and a reasonable range (it's on a 40D, but hope to go to 7D soon). It is quite sharp, and delivers better images than the 17-85...and IS too...

    A good compromise while planning your full lens set up...?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I'd have to echo most of the comments here and suggest the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 as being the best lens for a cropped sensor camera. The range is useful, the weight is (compraretively) manageable and the image quality is very good. The IS and fast(ish) aperture are bonuses. Many good alternatives and combinations have already been mentioned, for example: 24-105 + 10-22. Best of luck to you! A useful online resource for learning more about strengths/weaknesses of various lenses is: www.photozone.de/

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •