Serious Glass for 7D and 5D Mark ii

<p>Your bag is already crowded and why do you need more? All your focal lengths are covered. In fact, dump 135 mm and start enjoying your photography to hone your skills. </p>

<p>Your bag is already crowded and why do you need more? All your focal lengths are covered. In fact, dump 135 mm and start enjoying your photography to hone your skills. </p>

I am not defending canon I am just saying I like mine and I know many happy 24-70 users. If you go by photozone

they claim the 35L is not so good on full frame.

<p>Seems strange you have all that high end equipment but no gallery of photos on this site? Many wedding and sport photographers use all F2.8 zooms 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8. Many artist use all primes for creativety and may add the lower cost F4 zooms for convience. In your case you have everything you need, for shooting nature 17-40 portrait 85 1.8 and 70-200 and macro the 100 F2.8. I don't see why the 24-105 would not be fast enough for you when you have the 50, 85, 100, 135 and 200 primes? The 24-105 has IS which you don't have as is intended to be a lightweight convience lens. Spend time using the equipment you have as you already probably have more than you can figure out how to use.</p>

<p>My friend, a prime lens snob to be honest with you, borrowed my 24 - 70 for a few wweks to shoot a function in Tennesse earlier this year. His comment was "it is a stellar lens". Just as an FYI I have the 24 - 70 and the 24 - 105 that came w/ my 5DII as a kit lens.</p>

<p>I find the 24 - 70 provides better contrast and detail than the 24 - 105, and a touch less distortion to boot. I really like my 24 - 70!</p>

"What do you think I should get next?"

 

Start by asking yourself how your current equipment has (or has not) come up short for the types of photography you do.

Then consider which specific lens features might resolve those issues.

 

Dan

<p>I've heard of nothing but good things about the 24-70mm f/2.8L. If you're skeptical get the 24-105mm f/4L IS, but you'll lose a stop. You may also look at a longer telephoto. The converters are nice, but a single lens would give better IQ than a lens w/ tc. The 100-400mm, 300mm f/4L IS, or 400mm f/5.6L would broaden your possibilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>What do you think I should get next? Since 24-70, 2.8L doesn't have good reviews, and i don't know where to get 28-70, 2.8L. </em><strong><em>What can I do with this range?</em></strong><br /><em><strong></strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have a dual format kit (7D + 5DMkII).<br />You have: 17-40F/4L; 50/F1.8; 70-200F/4L.<br />Apropos <strong><em>RANGE</em></strong>, (FoV using TWO formats) the 24 to 70 (or 28 to 70) is superfluous: so I would not be considering it.</p>

<p>Personally: I think you are missing something wide and fast to round off that kit - I would choose the 24L MKII<br />And I would trade the 135/SF for the 135L.<br />Trade the 17 to 40 for the 16 to 35 MkII<br />Trade the 70 200/f4 and the 200/2.8 for one of the f/2.8 versions - you choose which one.<br />And if your tele-converters are not Canon and not at least the MkII version then I would update them also.<br />The 15/2.8Fish would be fun too.</p>

<p>WW<br />(But - I still have second thoughts about the 24 to105/4 as a "walk-a-round one lens for all things keep in the car at all times on my 5D - Robin Sibson is so very convincing)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow you have a variety of lenses! What else do you need and I would like to see some of your work. You should think about getting a shift lens.</p>

<p>Canon EF 600mm f/4L<br>

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L</p>

<p>I always find it funny when people ask for lenses for their cameras, rather than for their photography. <em>I just got a 5DII and it needs some lenses!</em></p>

<p>I have somewhat of a dark horse suggestion; the EF 28/1.8. This lens was a standard part of my event photography kit in the distant days of film. Since going digital in 2003 I have bought every new Rebel except for the Xt. Every 12-18 months a new one comes out: it typically has about 20% more pixels and a one stop higher ISO usability. Total cost for five bodies about $ 4,200; it also means not having to earn back the cost of a $ 8,000 11.1 Mp 1Ds or the $ 3,300 for a 12.8 Mp 5D (or one of each for a back-up kit) as they become technological dinosaurs. EOS body digressions aside, the 28/1.8 gives you a fast wide-angle on the 5D II and a fast semi-normal (approx. 45mm) on the 7D. While the MTF chart isn't super stellar, it is a quite good, well built fast focusing lens in a small package. While the two 1.4 L wide angles will make the pixel peepers happier; for those of us who actually have to carry gear around and make money off it this 28 is a pretty convincing lens. It would also fill the need for a fast lens at your wide end for a third (or less) of the cost of the Ls while being easier to haul around.</p>

<p>Note to pixel peeping gear snobs: I am not immune to lens lust. I have (earlier versions) of all three 2.8 L zoom lenses as well as seven other white lenses (up to 500 mm) and three other L lenses. But my working kit that covers probably 90 % of what I need to do is this:</p>

<p>T1i & T2i both with battery grips and CP-E2 battery packs attached for the two mounted 580 IIs with StoFens.<br>

EF-S 10-22 (wish it was 2.8.)<br>

EF-S 17-55/2.8 (just lovely.)<br>

Sigma 50-150/2.8 II (fast, sharp, light weight but zooms the wrong way.)<br>

Sigma 20/1.8 (fast, adequately sharp but big and heavy)<br>

Sigma 30/1.4 (oh, yeah!)<br>

EF 50/1.4<br>

EF 85/1.8<br>

EF 100-400 L</p>

<p>The OP said nothing about what kind of photography he does; nor what his cost, portability, and quality criteria are. The weakest lens in my list is the 20, but for low light, shallow DOF and 32 mm equiv. I never want to be without it. The 30/1.4 is a hair better than the 28/1.8, but is of course not usable on the 5.</p>

<p>Respectfully<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Every lens purchase is a bit of a crap shoot. Your odds are better with the brand names, but even those can disappoint in individual lenses from time to time.<br>

The 24-70 is a bread and butter lens for Canon-using photojournalists. Canon cares very much about that reputation, which began with the venerable 28-70 and got even better with the 24-70. While it is possible to get a bad one, the great majority do superb service around the world.<br>

I'm faced with an important group shot and I decided to see what comparisons were like in online reviews for the lens choices I have in my kit. I checked on some that I don't own, thinking I might order a lens specifically for the shoot, specifically in the 24 to 35 range. After reading many reviews and looking at charts and image samples, the only lens that matched or surpassed the 24-70 L was the 35mm 1.4 L. The main difference was the 35L was faster and at comparable f-stops the differences on test charts was as much a matter of personal preference as it was observation.<br>

I found I didn't need to order a new lens, the 24-70mmL was already in my bag. I picked it up at a tax-free shop in St Thomas and tested that day to my satisfaction a couple of years ago. 24mm test below:</p><div></div>

<p>Have you considered the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM? It would open up completely new areas of photography for you and give you bragging rights in any random gathering of photographers. Nothing says <em>serious </em>like the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM!</p>

<p>If you are looking at the fast, long, and expensive lens: I would try renting one first and see how much you are going to use it. Sometime people will buy an expensive fish eye use it twice then it gathers dust. Good luck with your photography</p>

<p>Jim Ducey</p>

<p>Dude ! you have way too many lenses and way too much money lol.<br>

Seriously though there have been some really good suggestions here and as W.W. said with an FF and crop sensor in your bag you cover a helluva FL range and cross over a lot as well, my advice ? diversify what you have. As others have said I dont see any super wides or super teles in there but an awful lot of mid range already in both zooms and primes. You presumably know what FL you use most but just for a change you could get rid of at least 1 maybe 2 of those lenses and get a Super wide or Super Tele for the fun of it.</p>

<p>What are you gonna shoot next that your current lens range cannot accomodate ? The obvious gaps are 10 - 22, 24-105, 500 F4 for wild life but only if you need it on your next project. Regards.</p>

<p>it's the quality...<br>

mid range zoom... and good quality zoom</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> What do you think I should get next?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have too much of the same already IMO, sell a few of the redundant ones and get a 400 5.6 and fisheye</p>

<p>I have the 24-70 f2.8 and find it is a great lens - especially for full frame. I used to have the 24-105 but the 24-70 is the better lens. Some people use both as the 24-105 is more compact.</p>

<p>You should consider a 70-200 f2.8. It's a nice thing to have in the bag. The only advantage I see with the f4 version is it's smaller and lighter.<br>

For portraits, it looks like you've got some great equipment to work with already.</p>

 

<p>yes, i do think i have great portrait glasses<br>

just wondering if i should get the 70-200 2.8.. if so, which version..... it's very expensive to me...</p>

I own the 28-70 f/2.8 and it is great. I think KEH.com has the 28-70 used for a good price. If you could only have 2

lenses get the 24-70 or 28-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I have the non IS in the 70-200 and it rocks.