 Dustin B. Todd |
Which Canon Lens? So, I am looking to upgrade my lens collection. I am currently running a Canon EOS 7D with an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I have already set my mind to replace the 70-300 with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, and want to pick up the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. Here is my dilema, what do I replace my 17-85 with, if at all? I am torn between 3 lenses: the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, or the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Sticking with something I can use on a full-frame (if I ever get one) sounds nice, but not neccesary. Through personal testing, the difference between 17mm and 24mm, even with the crop factor, seems very negligable for the type of shooting that I do (90% of shots in the telephoto range). I have never shot with f/2.8 before, so I am wondering how important it is to have at those wide angles, which I nearly never use except for in landscapes, where smaller apertures tend to rule. My shooting style is 95% based in detail/macro, landscape, and action/sports. Anyone have any thoughts, or other ideas? Call me a purist, but I stay away from the Tamron, Sigma lenses, etc. I prefer to stay secure in my compatibility/warranties and such, not to mention, I think it just looks much more professional when everything matches.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
Dustin, As long as the 17-85 is as wide as you care to go keep it. That along with the 70-200 and a 1.4TC will give you most of the range you need. As far as the slower f stop on the 17-85 I just up the ISO if it is too dark to get the shutter speed or aperture needed. I am using a 40D and your 7D will still make great photos at higher ISOs than I can use. You may want to consider the non L 100mm macro lens. It is a lot less expensive, the L lens still needs to have a tripod since the IS isn't good enough to correct camera movement at close range. But if you plan to use this lens as a portrait lens hand held you may prefer the more expensive 100L macro. The 24-70 is a very heavy lens and doesn't have the range of zoom your 17-85 does. Although the 24-105 is nothing but a GREAT walk around lens for a full frame camera it is a little Real professional photographers don't care if they look professional or not. If a lens is less expensive and will do the job the same or better than the make of their camera they will purchase it. They purchase and use the best lens for the job regardless of the lens maker.
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Dustin, I initially purchased the 24-70mm lens, but then replaced it with the 24-105mm. The extra 35mm zoom was more important to me than the extra f-stop. This lens is my general-purpose lens, but you can't go wrong with either of them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dustin B. Todd |
Lynn, I suppose I never conciously thought of it like that. But now that I have, I completely agree; if it produces a higher IQ, then who cares what it looks like or who makes it? Does that change you advice for an equivalent lens? Thanks for bring that to my attention. I did decide to go with the 100L. Even though the IS won't help me in macro, and I will need a tripod, the same is also true for the non-L, and the IS will be a big help for my non-macro general close-ups. That along with the weather sealing (which is huge for me since I often find myself in less-than-ideal circumstances) and it definitely seems worth the double price-tag. BTW, I got it for about $880 with an instant discount from B&H. Ken and Lynn, Thanks for all the advice. It was very helpful. I really appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Your gear reads much like mine, from the 7D on... The 100 2.8 is a stunning lens, whether you ever use it for macro work or not... I have the original non-IS version and have probably used it for just as many non-macro shots as macro; it does beautifully, always---it is easily my favorite and most-used lens over my last 4 years with SLR's. Though the 2.8 aperture is seldom where I shoot with it, as fun as that is for 1:1 macro work. We also share the EFS17-85, which is probably my next favorite/most-used lens, particularly for hand-held situations. The 70-300 we share is my least-used and least-favorite, and I've often thought of the 70-200L as a possible replacement one day... but perhaps as a result of my dislike for the 70-300 (which I *almost never* use---but some zoo shots on tripod in Omaha last summer gave me pause, and so I haven't sold the lens just yet!) I guess I should be classified as a "17 - 100" range shooter, mostly... I also picked up the 50mm 1.4 along the way, which I enjoy for handheld, given that fast aperture capability. You said you shoot more telephoto ranges, so this may not be of much interest, but at Christmas I picked up my newest lens, which may displace the 100mm as most-favorite someday---the EFS10-22, and I am now sort of completely addicted to that wide angle!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||