What lens? - Advice requested

Fenman55

Fenman55

Suspended / Banned
Messages
164
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I have now been working for a company for 25 years and they hand out awards so i thought a lens.

I use a 7D with a Canon EFS 17 - 85 as my "standard" lens but thought why not take this oportunity upgrade it. My immediate choice was the Canon 24-105L, but I have now just read that they don't perform too well on a cropped body [which is what my 7D is?] by becoming a 38 - 168 type of lens, [the 17mm was a very usefull landscape lens and I don't have anything wider] although the quallity is still an upgrade.
.
What lens upgrades the 17-85 best, as someone else is paying "L" glass is the final upgrade I was thinking of.

The lens I own are:-
Canon EFS 17 - 85 - General
Canon 100 - 400L - Cricket and wildlife
Tamron 100mm macro - Bugs and stuff

Would appreciate your help on this "final" lens purchase and have to advise them by monday morning.
 
The Canon 15-85mm f3.5 - 5.6 and the 17-55mm f2.8 would be contenders to replace the 17-85mm. I doubt if there's much to choose between them from an IQ point of view, and it really comes down to a choice of range or constant f2.8. They're both EFS.

L lenses are all EF, and designed for full frame, so they may not meet your needs at the wide end.
 
What are the budget constraints of the award?
To say that the 24-105 "doesn't perform too well" with a crop body is IMHO untrue.
It's a cracking lens and excellent value for money, it just may not suit an individuals style of photography.
 
MartynK said:
The Canon 15-85mm f3.5 - 5.6 and the 17-55mm f2.8 would be contenders to replace the 17-85mm. I doubt if there's much to choose between them from an IQ point of view, and it really comes down to a choice of range or constant f2.8. They're both EFS.

L lenses are all EF, and designed for full frame, so they may not meet your needs at the wide end.
Click to expand...

I second this, just not in that order.
 
Martin, what kind of shooting do you do and what could you see yourself getting into? Could there be a specialised lens that would sit nicely in your line-up?

If we're talking straight upgrades then the obvious candidate for the 17-85mm is the 17-55mm EF-S.... faster, better optics but with a more limited range. Would you miss that gap between 55mm and 100mm?

The suggested 15-85mm isn't really an upgrade (aside from 2mm extra at the wide end); it's more of a sideways step and TBH, with the amount of vignetting and drop-off that's been reported, it's not really selling itself.

17-40mm L f/4 is a great lens optically - I used one for about eight years and loved it - but on a 1.6x crop sensor that focal range isn't that handy as a walkabout lens. TBH, I used mine mostly at 17mm and the 35-40mm range was only used at f/4 for head and shoulders portraits (men holding fish generally). There's the 16-35mm f/2.8 L bu that's silly money....

RE: the 24-105mm.... I think there's a bit of a consensus that despite it being a very good lens optically and in terms of build, the focal length when used on 1.6x crop is more biased towards shooting where you need longer focal lengths and not a wide end, say, for landscapes.

Have you thought about a prime? Something like an 85mm f/1.8 or something mad like a fisheye/UWA?
 
Thank you all for your responses and as I suspected it was not an easy question.

To be honest the 17 - 85 is very nearly my ideal standard lens, however mine is an old copy and is actually very loose [if i'm carrying the camera the the lens always slips, easily, to 85mm, its that loose]. I would like to increase the quality hence the 24 - 105L but multiplying it by 1.6 really changes its overall usefullness, allthough I have to admit it still would be overall very usefull.

I was actually concerned by the loss of the 17 - 24 with the upgrade but the loss of 17 - 38 is a lot. This would then make me think that I would need another lens to fill the hole.............. and ultimatly an L grade, so far from having a "Final" upgrade I have just made another hole!

I have always liked the flexibility of zoom lens, ie you can allways find the "just right length".

What do I photograph, well there are a lot of landscapes often dawn & dusk tripod work, sporting shots, football, cricket etc, some wildlife, general B&W scenes, if it is a person shot then there is often a fish involved, minimal indoor and no studio , so I appear to be an outside photographer, again hence the desire for flexibilty.

I want to start printing some stuff and people keep asking for some largish prints hence looking for the best quality that I can realistically justify to myself.

Still at a loss!
 
Don't talk to me about fish - I see the bleeding things every day of my life. That's my job, shooting for fishing magazines :)
 
Living near Peterborough I know a couple who do the same, and one who goes round the world doing it and books.
 
I really didn't get on with the 17-85, esp for landscapes
as soon as you get anywhere near a man made vertical you realise how much it curves the whole scene.
17-55 for me. great lens
 
If the word 'final' is really ....'final', then what about considering keeping your 17-85, perhaps get it serviced to stop it being so loose, and adding a 10-20 / 10-22 UWA to your line up? When I had my 40D and bought a UWA it opened up so many more photographic opportunities and if it's a final purchase then I'd really consider that route. Open up your photo opportunities rather than replacing it with a lens which *might* just give you a little more quality.

That said, if your current 17-85 just isn't cutting it for you, then the 17-55 is a stellar lens on a crop body, and I think it had the edge (my perception rather than scientific) over the 24-105 I'm now using on my 5D2.

Both are great lenses though but as others have said and explained, very different, and it's a difficult choice.

But well done on getting an award! 25 years, that's an achievement :)

Mark.
 
Might be worth checking Lightroom/whatever to see what focal length most of your photos at first, then upgrade that focal length
 
Fenman55 said:
...
I was actually concerned by the loss of the 17 - 24 with the upgrade but the loss of 17 - 38 is a lot. This would then make me think that I would need another lens to fill the hole.............. and ultimatly an L grade, so far from having a "Final" upgrade I have just made another hole!
Click to expand...
I'm surprised no one else picked up on this, it's still only 17-24 you're losing. That's the danger when people start throwing around the 1.6 crop without any thought.
 
Is he not loosing the fov equivalent of 11mm rather than 8mm because of the crop factor.

27.2 vs 38.4 equiv for 17mm vs 24

I could be talking out my arse here
 
Phil V said:
I'm surprised no one else picked up on this, it's still only 17-24 you're losing. That's the danger when people start throwing around the 1.6 crop without any thought.
Click to expand...

Believe me there has been a lot of thought, maybe not a full understanding, but a lot of thought!

so in words of one sylable.....

Do a 50mm EF-S and a 50mm EF produce the same focal length on my [1.6x] crop 7D?
 
Focal length is a physical property of the lens, it's only the fov that changes depending in the sensor size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top