Quick Santa Needs to Know - Canon Walkabout Lens Choices

bl0at3r

bl0at3r

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,883
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry probably debated many times before....

But Santa needs to know in the next few days what lens he is supposed to be bringing me :thinking:

I am a lazy photographer, I don't like swapping lenses much or carrying loads of kit around - so I want to invest in a new lens that will probably stay on the front of my 7D for 85% of the time.

I currently have a Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 USM IS lens, which I feel is not amazingly sharp nor fast - I was noticing this on my 40D, but now I have a 7D it is more noticable.

It must be made by Canon, Ultra Sharp, Fast and have a reasonable zoom range rather than a prime. I already own a Sigma 10-20 and a Nifty Fifty.

I know there aren't too many choices, but am struggling to decide on :

17-40L F4
17-55 EFS F2.8
24-70L F2.8
24-105L F4

Do I really need f2.8 over f4?
Is the EFS really an L in disguise?
Would 24mm on a crop be too close if I'm used to having 17mm to play with?
Is IS a necessity?
I'm not sure about FF which would rule out the EFS - only just bought the 7D so not gonna be upgrading anytime soon

I'd be interested to hear if anyone had the same decisions, what they ended up with and whether they regretted it

Thanks & Seasons Greetings
 
Out of those, in terms of sharpness and build quality, the 24-70 has it for me. Have never owned one (unfortunately) but not many say it isn't an awesome lens...

But if you shoot ultra wide angle, it probably won't be wide enough on a cropped sensor.
 
markta said:
Out of those, in terms of sharpness and build quality, the 24-70 has it for me. Have never owned one (unfortunately) but not many say it isn't an awesome lens...

But if you shoot ultra wide angle, it probably won't be wide enough on a cropped sensor.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I do use the 17mm end more than the other end of the 17-85, but having said that I could always stick the sigma 10-20 on for ultrawide stuff.

This is my dilema - the 17-85 I am using ATM seems to be a good focal range for me and I'm worried 24mm might just be too tight - thus having to change the damn lens!
 
Well the f2.8 will give you the extra stop over the f4, which is always handy when hand holding in poor light, the 17-40 for me doesn't have the focal range for a walkabout lens.

The 17-55 gets very good reviews for sharpness but the build quality can't compete with an L lens..

I'd imagine if you still want it for landscapes, something starting at 17mm would be more favourable, so on balance out of the 17-40 and 17-55mm, the build quality and optics beat the 17-55, but the 17-55 does have an extra stop, but if you do decide to upgrade to FF goodness, then the 17-55 will not work..

If it were me, I'd probably get the 24-70 and stand back a little if too tight. A mod on here (Marcel) uses the 24-70 on a 40D. Might be worth PMing him for his advice....

A nice predicament to have; I wish I had such a generous santa! ;):D
 
Hmm, having just upgraded from a 40D to a 7D, I wasn't intending to buy any more camera stuff for a while - so I may just be sticking with the 17-85 for now anyway :cuckoo::cuckoo:

I don't know - does my head in when I get an idea !
 
I upgraded to the 24=105 f4l last month and it's never been off the camera. The best all-rounder IMO.;)
 
The 24-105L F4 IS is on my camera 90% of the time. It is the only lens that covers a wide range of focol length in constant f4 aperature plus it has IS. Also its not too heavy.
 
I vote for the 17-55 EF-S F2.8. 24mm isn't wide enough for me on a crop, it's good on a 5D though. If you buy the 17-55 then you can always sell later and buy the 24-105 or 24-70
 
markta said:
If it were me, I'd probably get the 24-70 and stand back a little if too tight. A mod on here (Marcel) uses the 24-70 on a 40D. Might be worth PMing him for his advice....

A nice predicament to have; I wish I had such a generous santa! ;):D
Click to expand...

seconded.

since I got my 24-70 it rarely comes off my camera - makes all my other L's feel redundant!!!

It's my major wedding lens and for just abouyt everything else.

In fact just got back from a friends and just took that for snaps
 
bl0at3r said:
...It must be made by Canon, Ultra Sharp, Fast and have a reasonable zoom range rather than a prime...
Click to expand...

Easy.

From that, there is only one. EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. Nothing else comes anywhere near the spec, and it is razor sharp. I seem to use nothing else these days :thumbs: Perfect for a 7D (which mine will be sitting on shortly).
 
cmonkey said:
I vote for the 17-55 EF-S F2.8. 24mm isn't wide enough for me on a crop, it's good on a 5D though. If you buy the 17-55 then you can always sell later and buy the 24-105 or 24-70
Click to expand...
Fourthed !
I used to stitch quite often when out with the 25-105 on a crop sensor.
But since going full frame I rarely ever stitch.

However, if you are prepared to stitch a bit, then the extra reach of 105 is well worth having; I rarely swapped the 24-105 for any other lens.
 
I sold my 24-105mm after I put a 17-55mm on my 7D. The 24-105 was much better built, but the 17-55mm has better IQ, is a stop faster, and has a more useful range for a crop walkabout. It is just a shame that Canon do not include a lens hood or pouch within the over-inflated price of the 17-55mm.

edit: I think the 17-55 & 24-105mm are the best two options for a crop sensor. Which one you choose depends on your type of shooting. I mostly shoot indoor and lean towards the wide end so the extra stop and width of the 17-55mm suits me most. However, if shooting outdoors the 24-105mm would best suit for the extra reach. The 17-40mm range is too narrow and too slow, and the 24-70 is the FF version of the 17-55mm but without IS.
 
I've got a 24-105 on my 50D and it's always on my camera as a walkabout lens. Significantly lighter than the 24-70, has IS which the 24-70 doesn't have and with the 105mm end it's more useful. I've successfully handheld down to 1/8th sec with this lens.
 
OMG - this is giving me a headache :bonk:

Thanks for all your comments, seems the 17-55 or the 24-105 are the most favoured suggestions

I do feel 750 quid for a non-L lens without pouch/hood - oh, and no red ring round the front is a bit steep

I recently sold a 55-250mm and a 100mm macro on fleabay, having bought them new 6 months ago, and got more or less 90% of what I paid back on each one - so I don't care that the 17-55 won't go on a FF body cos it'll get sold if/when I do upgrade to FF.

I'm *think* I'm leaning towards the 17-55 - I'd get between £150-200 if I sell the 17-85 so should work out about £550

That'll leave me some dosh for something else........ :D
 
You've seen it recommended before and you'll probable see it recommended again... Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. :lol:
 
bl0at3r said:
I do feel 750 quid for a non-L lens without pouch/hood - oh, and no red ring round the front is a bit steep

I recently sold a 55-250mm and a 100mm macro on fleabay, having bought them new 6 months ago, and got more or less 90% of what I paid back on each one - so I don't care that the 17-55 won't go on a FF body cos it'll get sold if/when I do upgrade to FF.
Click to expand...

You proved your point with the selling of the 55-250 and 100mm macro, glass retains most of its value, so you don't have to worry about it not having a red ring or not. The 17-55 2.8 IS is a good performer, so it'll be in demand for many photographers who have the 1.6x crop format.

The key thing is to purchase the lens you need, if you buy a 24-105 and find that 24mm is not wide enough and 105mm is to short then it'll become an expensive paperweight with a red ring around it. The 17-55 is as sharp as the 24-70 imo and has IS and is lighter and arguably more useful focal length range.

My 24-105 on a 1.6x crop is OK for weddings as 38-160 is not too bad general focal length range and it'll do group shots with careful organisation, but for general photography I find it's frustratingly not wide enough for landscapes and that's quite a lot of what I like to capture when out and about, if you're the same you might have a similar experience. For that reason I went for a 10-22 to compliment the 24-105 on a crop. If it had been available I would have simply bought the 17-55 IS

When I use a 5DII or 1Ds the 24-105 is perfect and seems notably sharper on FF than on 1.6x crop.
 
bl0at3r said:
OMG - this is giving me a headache :bonk:

Thanks for all your comments, seems the 17-55 or the 24-105 are the most favoured suggestions

I do feel 750 quid for a non-L lens without pouch/hood - oh, and no red ring round the front is a bit steep

I recently sold a 55-250mm and a 100mm macro on fleabay, having bought them new 6 months ago, and got more or less 90% of what I paid back on each one - so I don't care that the 17-55 won't go on a FF body cos it'll get sold if/when I do upgrade to FF.

I'm *think* I'm leaning towards the 17-55 - I'd get between £150-200 if I sell the 17-85 so should work out about £550

That'll leave me some dosh for something else........ :D
Click to expand...

Get Kerso to quote you for prices.

Only thing with 55mm is I found the kit lens a little short at times for a walk about. I found I was carrying my 70-200 all the time to compensate.
My reason for going for the 24-105 was weight and the extra reach over the 24-70. I didn't consider anything else.
 
Have you considered a new 15-85? It seems a good option as a walkabout lens
 
bl0at3r said:
Do I really need f2.8 over f4?
Click to expand...
The better noise handling capabilities of the 7D over the 40D means you can bump up the ISO to get a better shutter speed, so I'd say no, you can always use the Nifty if you need shallow depth of field.
bl0at3r said:
Is the EFS really an L in disguise?
Click to expand...
Not in build quality terms, IQ can get close depending on the lens.
bl0at3r said:
Would 24mm on a crop be too close if I'm used to having 17mm to play with?
Click to expand...
That's a call you have to make, do you often find yourself on the wide end of the 17-85. If yes then the 17-55 may be the better choice for you. If no then I'd think the 24-105 may be the better option due to it's range, IQ and build, you always have the 10-20 for the odd occasion you'd need wider.
bl0at3r said:
Is IS a necessity?
Click to expand...
It's a big plus for me I know that, whether it is for you I don't know. Go out for a quick shoot with your 17-85 and turn the IS off, you'll soon find out! ;)
 
Ok, i think the fact here is that if you went for the 17-55, you would have nothing with reach over 55mm. I know you say you shoot wide MOST of the time but not all the time. Wouldnt it make more sense to have the 24-105L and then if you need to go wider, pop the 10-20 on, meaning you only miss 4mm from the range of 10-105? Surely thats a no brainer.

Either that, or go for a 17-55 and get a 70-200 F4 L, so you still get a nice shiney L lens ;)

Or maybe look off brand? The Tamron 17-50 gets good reviews, and then get something from 50mm onwards, or again the 70-200 F4L?
 
PGD said:
On a side note... nice sig image Bl0at3r ;)
Click to expand...

As is your avatar - you on MX5NUTZ??



Ok, lots of great advice guys so thanks

Been looking through the mags at the camera adverts and spotted an 18-200mm - I see Canon & Sigma make these.

I assume they are not anywhere near as nice as the lenses mentioned above in my original post, BUT I wonder if ...

(being a lazy g1t & not really too excited about spending best part of a grand on 1 lens at the moment)

...these 18-200 lenses are worth looking at? I know they are not particularly fast - but do have IS.

Would leave me some dosh to spend on other stuff I spose :cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
Now you're moving the goal posts!

If you don't want f/2.8 after all, there is masses of choice. You need to try these things - Canon 18-200 is fairly big. Most lenses like this are quite compromised in all sorts of ways; only you can decide what your priorities are.

Somebody mentioned the new Canon 15-85 earlier, which appears to be quite uncompromised in terms of image quality and features, if you can live with the highish f/number. Fantastic range, especially at wide-angle.
 
I own a lot of the ones you are interested in (except the EFs)

as you already state you have the sigi 10-20 and that is very good on a crop body so the obvious choice would be the 24-105 L it is super sharp even wide open and the IS does help sometimes, focus is very fast IQ contrast is very good and you should be able to grab one around the £600. If you ever decided to go FF the 24-105 would be even better. The EFs lens only works on a crop body.
 
I was dead set on getting the 24-105 for my normal lens but I decided to get the 24-70 just for the times I will be in lower light. its heavy but a great lens I rarely take it off now and if I need wider I just take a few steps back.
 
HoppyUK said:
Now you're moving the goal posts!

If you don't want f/2.8 after all, there is masses of choice. You need to try these things - Canon 18-200 is fairly big. Most lenses like this are quite compromised in all sorts of ways; only you can decide what your priorities are.

Somebody mentioned the new Canon 15-85 earlier, which appears to be quite uncompromised in terms of image quality and features, if you can live with the highish f/number. Fantastic range, especially at wide-angle.
Click to expand...

I have just got a Canon 18-200 to use as a general walkabout so can't comment on image quality, but it is smaller when not zoomed than the 17-55is and has a 72mm filter compared to 77mm on the 17-55.
 
Ive owned all three and liked them all.

If i still had a crop it would be the 17-55 IS for me, i loved that lens. I liked the 24-105 but the 24-70 i have now is something else. Excellent IQ and built like a tank.
 
bl0at3r said:
OMG - this is giving me a headache :bonk:

Thanks for all your comments, seems the 17-55 or the 24-105 are the most favoured suggestions

I do feel 750 quid for a non-L lens without pouch/hood - oh, and no red ring round the front is a bit steep

I recently sold a 55-250mm and a 100mm macro on fleabay, having bought them new 6 months ago, and got more or less 90% of what I paid back on each one - so I don't care that the 17-55 won't go on a FF body cos it'll get sold if/when I do upgrade to FF.

I'm *think* I'm leaning towards the 17-55 - I'd get between £150-200 if I sell the 17-85 so should work out about £550

That'll leave me some dosh for something else........ :D
Click to expand...

your 55-250 f4-5.6 IS lives on in my kit back ha ha :wave:
i have the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS
if you still want to try it on your 7D get in touch
 
terryuk said:
your 55-250 f4-5.6 IS lives on in my kit back ha ha :wave:
i have the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS
if you still want to try it on your 7D get in touch
Click to expand...

wow small world :eek:
thanks for the offer - the remainder of my lenses are on Ebay as we speak - so as of tomorrow night I will have a 7D body and no damn glass on the front :cuckoo::cuckoo:

that'll force me to decide what lens to get next :thumbs:
 
a small world indeed
i am watching your 17-85 on there waiting for the last minute bidding frenzy
 
Ok so I did something sensible!
I did a smar search in PSE8 and used 2 criteria

focal length 17-23
focal length 24-70

surprisingly there wasn't that muh difference in the total number of photos but I could see that the 17-23 was mainly landscape/buildings etc, whilst the 24-70 was mainly people and detail shots.

I think the 17-55 offers the best focal length as it starts at 17 rather than 24, also has f2.8 and IS

but the 24-70 or the 24-105 offer better build quality and are weather sealed like my 7d

I have seen quite a few reports about dust getting inside the 17-55 which worries me

do I reallyneed f2.8 or will I see nice bokeh on the f4?
 
You will see nice bokeh at f4 if there is enough distance between the subject and the background.

here is an example, both shot with the 24-70 at 70mm on the 500D. The only subject I have in this room my bonsai sapling I am growing to see if I can do it (its a cheaper hobby than photography) and yes hand held so there is some movement slightly sorry. the window behind is very dirty I haven't cleaned inside for a few month but the bokeh hides it ;), the window frame is about 15cm behind the subject.

f/2.8
4265268591_3b76a25479.jpg

Larger link here

f/4
4265267385_53db59e644.jpg

larger link here

I was torn between the 24-105 and the 24-70 I just went with the option of getting more light in if I ever need to.
 
I would look at 17-50 f2.8 Tamron and couple that with Canon 70 200 f4L

Great combo and can be had for less than any of the canons you mention. The Canon 70-200 is widely regarded as one of their best lenses, and the Tamron may not have USM but works well in low light and is a good sharp lens with the required focal length and f2.8 whilst being a load cheaper.

Personally I wouldn't spend the money on the canon 17-55 as some say build quality is not up to much and is no where near L quality. That said image quality is meant to be V good.

I have just sold the Tamron to go to a 24-70L, but I am planning to go FF this year, so that was a major reason in the upgrade. Well that and the red ring :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top