7D and walk around lens

john starkey

john starkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,389
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,what do you all suggest as nice walk around lens to go with my 7D,money not a problem,
but is it worth spending on L glass with the crop factor,
regards john
 
Probably the best option would be the 18-55mm 2.8 for a walkabout lens.

I bought a 24-105mm L for my 40D and have fallen in love with it, the quality increase is incredible so I would say it is well worth the money for L glass.

That said the 18-55mm 2.8 is said to be L quality but without the red ring
 
I hear that the 24-105 f/4 is a nice walkabout lens for crop factor cameras even if you do lose out on the wide end. I went for the 24-70 because I needed the fast glass.

Also, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is quite highly regarded as a good walkabout lens.

Personally I'd choose from the 24-70/105 purely based on the build quality and how it balances well against the gripped 7D.

I'm sure you'll enjoy whatever you get.

Tom N.
 
PaulyD said:
...I bought a 24-105mm L for my 40D and have fallen in love with it, the quality increase is incredible so I would say it is well worth the money for L glass...
Click to expand...

:agree: :plusone:

EF24-105mm all the way... It's a great lens and you should find one on here for between £600 and £650. They pop up fairly regularly. :)

Si
 
A 24-105L wouldn`t be wide enough for me on a crop as I shoot alot of landscape/architecture shots, I would probably go with the 17-40L, but that may not be long enough for some. :)
 
Yep you lose out slightly on the wide end but for I found i never really shoot at that end and the extra length is extremely handy.

The F4 is the only downside but helps with IS, which is also extremely good, i have managed to shot handheld down at 1/5 seconds and get great results
 
chilliz said:
A 24-105L wouldn`t be wide enough for me on a crop as I shoot alot of landscape/architecture shots, I would probably go with the 17-40L, but that may not be long enough for some. :)
Click to expand...

That's not a problem... Get an EF-S 10-22 as well! :D

Si
 
I use 17-55 f/2.8IS on my 7D. Zoom range is spot on with a crop sensor. If that lens had been out when I went from 10D to 5D, I may never have gone FF!
 
My own choice on an APS-C body is, without hesitation, the 17-55/2.8 IS. But that suits my preferences. It may not suit yours. I also see no harm in buying L glass for crop bodies, if they have the specs you want. I bought a 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400 when I had only a 30D. They have continued to serve me well with my 40D, 50D, 7D, 1D3 and 5D2. An investment in good glass is rarely a waste. It will last for years and probably outlast several generations of body. That said, the 17-55 is an excellent lens and in my opinion there is no L glass that competes on equal terms. Indeed I was really disapointed when I bought my 1D3 and felt "forced" to buy a 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 to cover the range covered by my 17-55.

I would be very cautious about restricting myself to 24mm (38mm equivalent) at the wide end. That's worse than pretty much all point and shoot cameras, many of which are now trumpeting wide angle equivalents of around 24mm to 28mm. I'm also not a big fan of slow or variable max apertures. That cuts out f/4 lenses like the 24-105 and lenses such as the 15-85 for me.

But quite honestly, you need to satisfy your requirements, not mine. A walkabout lens for wildlife might be the 100-400. A walkabout lens for landscapes might be the 10-22. A general purpose outdoor lens might well be the 24-105, but if you want to shoot indoors too the 17-55 and its f/2.8 aperture will probably be better. If you aren't fussed about speed or IQ then maybe a superzoom will be the right walkaround lens for you. You need to figure out the focal length range you want, the aperture range you want, whether or not you want IS, and then see which lenses fit your needs. Then you can see which of those has the IQ you desire.

Here's a big thread over on POTN covering the same question- http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=819629. I haven't read it but hopefully it will offer some insight.
 
tdodd said:
My own choice on an APS-C body is, without hesitation, the 17-55/2.8 IS. But that suits my preferences. It may not suit yours. I also see no harm in buying L glass for crop bodies, if they have the specs you want. I bought a 70-200/2.8L IS and 100-400 when I had only a 30D. They have continued to serve me well with my 40D, 50D, 7D, 1D3 and 5D2. An investment in good glass is rarely a waste. It will last for years and probably outlast several generations of body. That said, the 17-55 is an excellent lens and in my opinion there is no L glass that competes on equal terms. Indeed I was really disapointed when I bought my 1D3 and felt "forced" to buy a 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 to cover the range covered by my 17-55.

I would be very cautious about restricting myself to 24mm (38mm equivalent) at the wide end. That's worse than pretty much all point and shoot cameras, many of which are now trumpeting wide angle equivalents of around 24mm to 28mm. I'm also not a big fan of slow or variable max apertures. That cuts out f/4 lenses like the 24-105 and lenses such as the 15-85 for me.

But quite honestly, you need to satisfy your requirements, not mine. A walkabout lens for wildlife might be the 100-400. A walkabout lens for landscapes might be the 10-22. A general purpose outdoor lens might well be the 24-105, but if you want to shoot indoors too the 17-55 and its f/2.8 aperture will probably be better. If you aren't fussed about speed or IQ then maybe a superzoom will be the right walkaround lens for you. You need to figure out the focal length range you want, the aperture range you want, whether or not you want IS, and then see which lenses fit your needs. Then you can see which of those has the IQ you desire.

Here's a big thread over on POTN covering the same question- http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=819629. I haven't read it but hopefully it will offer some insight.
Click to expand...

Hi Tim,great reply by the way the 17-55 may be what i need,i do mostly birds /wildlife,i have these lenses at the moment 100-400L,10-22,100 macro,18-55 kit lens,i am saving for a 500mmL, i just want something for holidays so i can slip into my hand luggage, thanks for the link and the indepth reply,
regards john.
 
Hi John. I recently bought a 17-55 f/2.8, and I love it. I was going to get a 24-105 as well but have changed my mind now, the 17-55 does most of all I want. However, if you need extra reach maybe it wont suit you as Tim said. I have from 100mm upwards covered so only have a gap between 55 and 100, and for what I do that isnt a problem. All the reviews I have read state that the 17-55 optics are virtually up to 'L' standard, I found it to to be pin sharp with great colour and balances on the 7D perfectly. Hope this helps :thumbs:
 
Trev4 said:
Hi John. I recently bought a 17-55 f/2.8, and I love it. I was going to get a 24-105 as well but have changed my mind now, the 17-55 does most of all I want. However, if you need extra reach maybe it wont suit you as Tim said. I have from 100mm upwards covered so only have a gap between 55 and 100, and for what I do that isnt a problem. All the reviews I have read state that the 17-55 optics are virtually up to 'L' standard, I found it to to be pin sharp with great colour and balances on the 7D perfectly. Hope this helps :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hi Trev,hope your well,i am leaning towards the 17-55 i have seen some pics taken with it and they were very good,
take care
john.
 
You know I was asking myself the same question recently. I have a 10-22, 50 f/1.8 and a 70-200. I was missing something in the middle but I find the 10-22 does me for walk around a lot of the time.

I think I'll be going for a 24-70 2.8L when the funds allow!
 
Ooops double post!
 
i have a 50D and my line up is below and i find them to suit me quite easily.
 
Hi all,i thought about this for a couple days and came up with this reasoning,as i like wildlife/bird photography most,i think i will get the canon EF 70-200mm f/4L is usm,it will get used for the birds and stuff,plus i can use it on holidays and the weight isnt too bad,
thanks for all the reply and tips on what to do:thumbs:,
regards
john.
 
Definitely the 17-55 for me. There's situations when you just need the width, where the shot is just impossible if you can't fit the whole subject in. 17mm is a bit of a compromise on a 1.6x crop camera as it is.

The 24-105 is a very nice lens but I would keep that for full frame or at a push a 1.3x crop camera
 
john starkey said:
Hi all,i thought about this for a couple days and came up with this reasoning,as i like wildlife/bird photography most,i think i will get the canon EF 70-200mm f/4L is usm,it will get used for the birds and stuff,plus i can use it on holidays and the weight isnt too bad,
thanks for all the reply and tips on what to do:thumbs:,
regards
john.
Click to expand...

That's beginning to sound like my crop format outfit, which I've just traded for full frame. 10-22, 17-55 2.8, 70-200L 4 IS, plus 100-400L for wildlife and a set of tubes for macro on the 70-200. It worked really well for me :thumbs: and the 17-55 did 75% of the work.

No other lens can match the 17-55 for walkabout range, image quality, f/2.8, and IS. The new 15-85 IS has an even better range and is said to be as sharp, but f/3.5-5.6 would be a big downside for me.
 
john starkey said:
Hi all,i thought about this for a couple days and came up with this reasoning,as i like wildlife/bird photography most,i think i will get the canon EF 70-200mm f/4L is usm,it will get used for the birds and stuff,plus i can use it on holidays and the weight isnt too bad,
thanks for all the reply and tips on what to do:thumbs:,
regards
john.
Click to expand...

70-200/4 seems an odd choice for me. It will mostly prove too short for wildlife and birds, which you already have covered by the 100-400, only adds a little at the wide end to the focal length range of that lens, and at 100mm is only 1/3 stop faster. It might be smaller and lighter but it isn't going to add much to your photographic capabilities. If you were to add a 1.4X teleconverter it would be a fixed f/5.6 and then only cover 98-280mm, making it less capable than the 100-400. As a "holiday walkabout" it's too short for wildlife, even "zoo wildlife" and too long for most other things, like landscapes, architecture, museums, bars/cafes and anything indoors.

By the sound of things, wildlife and birds is where your heart is really at, so why not simply take the 100-400 for that, and pop either the 10-22 or 18-55 in your bag for the other stuff.

FWIW, when I outgrew my 17-85, after a year of use, I bought in one purchase the 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8IS and 100-400. The 70-200 range has lots of uses, but in my opinion, not as a single lens holiday walkabout, and at f/4, has too much overlap with the 100-400.

If you really want to buy a new walkaround lens then, knowing now that you have the 10-22 already, the 24-105 makes much more sense to me, and will sit quite nicely between your 10-22 and 100-400. The 70-200/4, in your position, makes little sense to me.
 
tdodd said:
70-200/4 seems an odd choice for me. It will mostly prove too short for wildlife and birds, which you already have covered by the 100-400, only adds a little at the wide end to the focal length range of that lens, and at 100mm is only 1/3 stop faster. It might be smaller and lighter but it isn't going to add much to your photographic capabilities. If you were to add a 1.4X teleconverter it would be a fixed f/5.6 and then only cover 98-280mm, making it less capable than the 100-400. As a "holiday walkabout" it's too short for wildlife, even "zoo wildlife" and too long for most other things, like landscapes, architecture, museums, bars/cafes and anything indoors.

By the sound of things, wildlife and birds is where your heart is really at, so why not simply take the 100-400 for that, and pop either the 10-22 or 18-55 in your bag for the other stuff.

FWIW, when I outgrew my 17-85, after a year of use, I bought in one purchase the 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8IS and 100-400. The 70-200 range has lots of uses, but in my opinion, not as a single lens holiday walkabout, and at f/4, has too much overlap with the 100-400.

If you really want to buy a new walkaround lens then, knowing now that you have the 10-22 already, the 24-105 makes much more sense to me, and will sit quite nicely between your 10-22 and 100-400. The 70-200/4, in your position, makes little sense to me.
Click to expand...

All of which makes perfect sense Tim, apart from the size and weight bit - that's an essential aspect in my definition of a 'walkabout' lens or outfit. The 70-200L 4 IS is 760g, and 100-400L is a mighty 1380g - almost double the weight and a heck of a penalty to lug about if you maybe don't need the length. I was just always leaving it at home for that reason.

The 70-200L 4 IS is also sharper, perfect for portraits, takes macro tubes well, has much better IS, and is just generally more practical when you don't need 400mm. I've also got a 1.4x TC that goes in my pocket.

Another contender might be the very good 70-300 IS which probably offers more long lens value than just about anything else. It's pretty sharp, good range, good IS, small and light, and best of all it's cheap.

On the other hand, for wildlife you really do need reach and for that the 100-400L is unbeatable. So you need both :D
 
PaulyD said:
Probably the best option would be the 18-55mm 2.8 for a walkabout lens.

I bought a 24-105mm L for my 40D and have fallen in love with it, the quality increase is incredible so I would say it is well worth the money for L glass.

That said the 18-55mm 2.8 is said to be L quality but without the red ring
Click to expand...

Don't you mean the EFS 17-55 2.8? Thats a cracking lens, but very expensive!!! But I'd say the best walkabout lens going if you can afford it!

If you want a walkabout with more range and flexibility I can recommend the 18-135 IS. IQ not as good as the 17-55 of course, as its a superzoom, but for holidays it damn near perfect, as the new IS is very, very good which should enable you to get some nice handheld evening / night shots, so you don't need to lug the tripod around.

If money is no object though, go for the 17-55! I want one of these... :love:
 
I agree the Canon 24-105mm lens is a great lens and i would say makes a ideal walk around lens.


Kay
 
KDBee said:
I agree the Canon 24-105mm lens is a great lens and i would say makes a ideal walk around lens.


Kay
Click to expand...

I found 24mm a bit restrictive on a walkabout for crop format. That said he has the 10-22 so that wouldn't be a massive issue. But then again, a true walkabout is one where you don't have to change lenses!
 
odd jim said:
I found 24mm a bit restrictive on a walkabout for crop format. That said he has the 10-22 so that wouldn't be a massive issue. But then again, a true walkabout is one where you don't have to change lenses!
Click to expand...


Good point, i use on full frame
 
the 17-85IS kit lens is actually pretty good, until funds allow for L glass, its a pretty good stand-in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top