Canon New Lens Strategy

I plan on buying an Elan 7N. I take pics hiking and some family

pics. I was thinking of getting the 17-40/4L, plus a prime lens for

low light (50 or 85), plus the 70-200/4L. Is that a good strategy?

I've heard some say that the 17-40 is too wide. The other option is

to get the 24-70/2.8L plus the 70-200/4L, but I am concerned about

the weight of the 24-70. Any comments?

For you, with Elan 7N I would suggest 24-70/2.8L and 85/1.8 (or 100/2.8 macro) which you can cover reasonably wide, tele and macro (if 100/2.8). I have 24-70/2.8 which performs very good. Also I have 17-40/4 but using only with 10D ( due to 1.6 crop factor).Keep in mind 100/2.8 macro you can use as a normal lens also.

The 17-40/4l, 50/1.8, 70-200/4L is a good $1500 strategy.

The 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/4L is a good $2000+ strategy.

 

It sounds like you are just starting out: What about a $300 24-85 and see where it leads? But if you are sure you want the best out the get go, the $2000 strategy is a good way to go. The wide zoom is a little better suited to the small dSLR sensors, but if you don't mind an occassional lens swap, it will do you well for film.

If hiking = landscape photography then the 17-40 F4/L lens is ideal, you will find the 24-70 F2.8/L is a big heavy lens for serious hiking and not really wide enough for the majority of landscape work. You cannot fault the sharpness of the 24/70 lens, but it is not really the right tool if you do a lot of landscape work several miles away from your car.

 

A light tripod is also a must, if you can justify or afford Carbon Fibre put that top of your list as well. A lens with F4 aperture isn't really a limiting factor as for landscape work you want maximum depth of field so you will be likley to be using the lens at F16 and above and will need a tripod for the slow shutter speeds anyway.

 

Personally I like the distortion effects of the 17mm end of my lens producing deep foreground interest in my landscape shots, but that is my own personal preference.

 

The 50 F1.8 is relatively cheap and very sharp and recommended by most people, so really you need to question whether or not the extra half a stop worth it for the 50 F1.4, you are probably better off putting the difference in price to either a good tripod or 85mm as well.

 

Mike Smith

<i>you will find the 24-70 F2.8/L is a big heavy lens for serious hiking</i><br> <br>

Especially if you go hiking with kids.

I guess I am going to weigh in on the otherside of the argument. I carry the best glass I can afford and just put up with the weight. Your idea of hiking compared to others can be quite different. I go out for an entire day with a photo back pack that weighs about 51 pounds. It includes a 17-35 2.8L, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8L, 100 2.8 Macro, 300 2.8L IS, and a 3rd party 15mm fisheye plus some extension tubes and a Canon 2X teleconverter. My philosophy is if I spent the money to buy it I damn well want to have it should the need arise. I go out for walks/hikes with my family, the zoo, parks, all around. To me the quality of the photos makes the weight secondary. Having said all that I enjoy my 17-35, 50, 70-200, 100 macro kit very much. The 24-70 2.8L is interesting if I had to limit myself to one lens for an outing. If you ever go digital, the 24-70 will not be wide enough. As for the 17-40 being too wide I don't think that is possible. Once you have one you should/will experiment and explore new avenues with your photography. I have used all of my above equipment on an EOS 1VHS since 2000, and have recently started using it on a 1D Mark II, and I already miss the ultra-wide 17 perspective. Most important whatever you buy, get out and play with it. I just passed the 1,700 photo mark with my new 1D...digital is a kick!

I would second Mikes suggestion though I disagree that 24mm is not really wide enough for the majority of landscape shots. A fast lens is not necessary for landscape work. I do carry a tripod. The 17-40L (1.1lbs 500g) is basically half the weight of the 24-70/2.8L (2.1 lbs 950g). The 17-40/4 zoom is an excellent hiking lens since it is nearly the same weight as a 20/2.8 so going to primes will not save weight.

 

Another possible approach is using a Tamron 28-75/2.8 (14.4 oz 450g) but personally I think your choice of 17-40L, 50mm, and 70-200/4L is the best. The first question is which 50mm. The 50/1.8 is very cheap, very light, fast, and very sharp with cheap but servicable build quality. The 50/1.4 is much nicer build with much better MF ring. Neither is a floating element design and so show barrel distortion when focused on close objects.

 

The 50/2.5 compact macro is a floating element design. Can give 1:1 magnification with the optional EF Life Size Converter though working distance is very small. It is not particularly fast however so you lose your low light ability.

 

The macro lens is a good suggestion. I recently bought a Tamron 90/2.8 macro (significantly cheaper in the UK than the Canon 100 mm). Serves as a nice portrait lens though the bokeh of the 85/1.8 is better. Macro shots may be cliched by I still like them and find the macro lens useful for shots of dragonflies and the like when hiking.

17-40/f4, 50mm f1.8, and 70-200/f4. The 50mm fits perfectly between the zooms. Learning to compose effectively from 17-24mm is challenging but highly rewarding. When you go digital in a few years, and if you can't afford a full frame DSLR the 17-40 will be much more useful at a 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor than the 24-70.

 

The 24-70 is truly a luxury lens in the sense that you do not get a lot for your money. For most photography people do not use lenses in between 50-70mm. The 24-50 range is very useful but is it really worth that much when you can have the very useful extra wide range of the 17-40 instead. The 50/1.8 will severely outclass the 24-70 in the normal range. You could crop an image from the 50 to approximate the 70mm focal length and still be ahead. A professional PJ could justify the 24-70 for his normal street level walk around lens.

 

Good luck!

<i>I carry the best glass I can afford and just put up with the weight.</i><br> <br>

I like to backpack and still carry my pentax (screwmount) for that - with just a 35/3.5, 55/1.8, 120/2.8 - all very light (those are the only screwmount lenses I kept when I sold pentax stuff to go Canon. I kept three bodies as well - black H3, black spotmatic, black spotmatic II. And I kept some dented up and abused chrome pentax in case I need parts ...). If I was to backpack or do an extensive day hike with the Canon I would probably want to buy some lighter equivelents of my existing lenses - say a 24/2.8 instead of my 20/2.8 USM and 28/1.8 USM, and maybe a 135/2.8 SF (I'm planning on getting a 135/2L but that isn't a backpacking lens).

<br> <br>

I don't have the 24/2.8 or 135/2.8SF hence my M42 stuff. But for backpacking, and even extensive day hikes, weight is a consideration but not the only one - you gotta have other gear too, like emergency stuff, clothing, generator and 60" widescreen TV with a satelite dish, you know - the basics. The slower lenses are not only lighter but also take up less space in the backpack.

<br> <br>

Similarly, if I was going to my Neices wedding (no - she's not getting married yet, she's 12) - my 85/1.8 USM is good enough, but I might also highly consider in a 50/1.4 USM if for no other reason than the quiet operation and the FTM and not use my 50/1.8mkI

I'll throw in my usual comment about the 24-85mm. It really is very good, and in a hiking

situation is light. Also, if you do drop it/throw it in a river/ding it on a rock, it's a lot easier

to be philosophical about trashing *that* lens than about the 24-70.

I have an elan 7 with a 50 f/1.8 and 100-300 f/5.6 i'm trying to to fill out the other ranges.

 

I would consider the 28 f/2.8 it is only 160 and should be lighter than the 17-40 and cheaper with good optics.

If you want a macro you should consider the 50mm or 100mm.

 

My advice is to get the 70-200 f/4 and go from there.

It has a 1:5 macro (so you can figure if you want one of the macros)

You can see if you need a faster lense.

And you can see if you need a wider angle and how much wider.

 

I guess you need to figure if you plan on using a tripod at all, and what type of film and speed you plan on using.

you're looking at good lenses. here are my two extra cents on top of what have been said so far:

 

- i was planning to buy a elan 7N today, but my local dealer was out so i ended up negotiationg a deal for a mint EOS 3 he had got in as a trade. $400 vs. $350 for the 7N, which made it a no brainer. you might want to look around and go with a used EOS3 instead.

 

- you need at least one fast lens. take a look at the 50/1.4, which i personally use/prefer. but then again, the 50/1.8 is no slouch - go and take a look at Reina's gallery and you'll see.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=573332

I'll second the vote on the 24-85 and the 70-200/F4L. Both use 67mm filters and compliment each other very well. This is my EOS-3 combo.

 

I do have the 17-40L, but it typically stays on my 10D. It is somewhat heavier than the 24-85 and cost twice as much.

 

I believe you will be happy with the 24-85 and 70-200 combo.

just buy the 28/2.8, the 50/1.8, and the 200/2.8 and be done with it, zooms are junk. I have the 24-70/2.8, the 24-85 and the 70-200/2.8 IS along with a few primes, and let me just say that you dont really need zoom, the primes will be much cheaper and lighter than the zooms. Use the money you save to buy another 7N and then you will have a photography kit that others will envy.

There's about as many opinions out there as there are photographers. For hiking I like a couple zooms: 17-40/4L for wide, 70-200/4L for tele. For family shots outdoors in good light, these work well too. Otherwise for family I'd recommend a 35/2.0 and 85/1.8. I've got the 100/2.8 macro instead of the 85 (and a 50/1.8 too), but I think I'd like the 85 as well because it's faster and lighter than the macro lens for family outings and travel.

Consider the 50mm f1.8 to fill the gap between 17-40 and 70-200.

The 50mm f1.8 is so light that u won't feel it nor does it take up too much space.

You have to decide the focal lengths you need and use most and how you use them - eg need for fast glass etc.. Best thing is to go and try the alternatives - feel the weight and zoom ranges etc.. I use a 24-70mm f2.8L and 70-200mm f2.8L. Both are big, heavy, excellent construction, fast and superb optically. The weight is not an issue to me. But they are a big cost too. Price was the last consideration - I just bought them progressively as my budget allowed.