BEST WALK AROUND LENS FOR CANON 7D

<p>I also vote for the 28-105. It's been my walk around lens for 5 years now. Probably 80 of my photos end up from that lens.<br>

An additional benefit - the zoom on the 580EX flash matches the 28-105.</p>

>>> Brad and Jim, How does the Tamron perform in low light conditions? Indoors?

 

For a zoom, excellent. The large (for a zoom) f/2.8 aperture lets in lots of light. If you're going to be shooting a lot in low light indoors, you can do better with a prime at f/2.0 or f/1.4, but with loss of focal length flexibility.

 

When I bought my Tamron 17-50, I compared it across the counter with Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Being lighter

and smaller made it an easy choice for a walking around lens that I'd be using a lot. IS was not important to me.

The fact that it was a bit more than 1/3rd the price of the canon was icing on the cake (even though I was

prepared to pay the extra $$$).

 

The Tamron also comes with a hood, nice case, and a 6 year warranty. Not so with the Canon. For street

photography and street portraiture, something I do a LOT, looking back (today I use a 5DII and 35/1.4 now) it

was a great decision.

<p>5. - Canon 28-105<br>

2. Canon 10-22</p>

<p>The Tamron 18-270 F3.5-6.3 is a good all purpose lens on the 7D, it is not the best lens for any one given situation but it covers a wide range for a walk around lens. A high end prime lens will always give you a better photo if you want to carry enough of them around with you.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>15-85<br>

17-55</p>

<p>David: If you simply enter</p>

<h1>BEST WALK AROUND LENS FOR CANON 7D</h1>

<p>in the search field and compare the handful of choices to what you own, the answer is there.</p>

<p>Hello Peter,<br>

Yes I realize that but sometimes fresh responses to this question may yield updated responses now that people have been using the 7D for a while...</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

David</p>

<p>The Tamron with VC does very well indoors, I think it would take a much faster lens to do as well without the VC if used hand held. I us AV much of the time indoors and most of the time the lens is not wide open. I have used AV with ISO 800 and had satisfactory results in low light. When you start using faster than the 3.5 the depth of field is going to be very shallow. The Tamron is the lens that stays on my 7D most of the time.<br>

Jim <a></a><a></a></p>

<p>Another vote for the 17-40 f4. It might seem a little too slow for an all purpose lens, but with the outstanding high iso performance these days, its more than manageable. It was my first L lens, and honestly my first serious piece of glass. Even though 64mm (crop body) might seem too short, I found that it pushed me to get closer into the action, and really evaluate each shot. I'd say this one lens contributed to the most to making me a better photographer, instead of just sitting on the side zooming away. Of course there were plenty of times I wished i had something longer, or a larger aperture for portraits, but that's just part of life. This lens was an excellent pair with the nifty 50, and between the two I learned quite a bit. </p>

<p>Not to mention the fact that an L series lens will hold it's value much better, (especially if you buy it used) but is also tack sharp, weather sealed, and just generally a step up. I fell in love with a 28-135IS on my 30D quite a while ago, but still found myself coming back to the 17-40. Now that I've switched up to full frame, the 17-40 is still on my camera a majority of the time. I will concede that I mainly shoot architecture/interiors/landscape, so your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>Whatever lens you decide to get, make sure it is short enough so you can use the pop-up flash. With the 24-70mm on my 7D I get strong dark shadows at the bottom of the image when I set the lens to 24mm and try to use the pop-up flash.<br>

I would assume that any lens around that size would get you the same results. If you don't mind the weight, the 24-70mm is a great choice very sharp and contrasty. The closest thing to the 24-70 which I consider a FF lens, is the 17-55mm f2.8. This lens is light, fast, very sharp, expensive and is a perfect companion to the 10-22mm f3.5/4.5. It also focuses better in low light than the other two. <br>

For Travel(non-critical) I use ther 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 which gives me plenty of reach and is very light, compact(no pop-up problems) and cheap. To counter the softness at longer lengths, I might boost up the in-camera sharpening by 1 or 2 notches. Recently I purchased the discontinued Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 to complement this lens. <em> </em></p>

<p>If you really don't want any wide angle to speak of, a very cost effective alternative for most people to the EF 24-105mm IS lens is the older EF 28-135mm IS lens (ca. US$450 new), but since you already have the slightly shorter 28-105mm (tho' it doesn't have the IS)...... The 28-135 IS is a much underrated lens. It was the actual lens the older EF-S 17-85mm IS was meant to substitute for, for APS-C bodies.</p>

<p>The 28-135mm, in fact, is often sold with the 7D body as a kit lens.</p>

Ty,

Looking for the everyday lens... The one that would be on my camera most of the time when not doing Macro or

landscape work.... Travel, School plays, Birthday parties, street events.... that kind of thing... good all around lens that

will be my main lens for everyday use..

Thanks

David

 

 

In that case Dabid, I'd say a 24mm or a 35mm, but I would also be tempted to add a 50mm along with a 24mm.

<p>David - you have whole load of lenses and have still not given us any idea of what you are looking for from your next purchase. You say the 28-105 is a 'weak' walkaround lens. Why? You have to help us here. The fact you 'love' the 100f2.8 and the 10-22 suggests you have to compromise on either focal length or aperture.<br>

The 15-85, 17-55 f2.8 (or Tamron 17-50), 24-105 f4, and 24-70 all have diffferent compromises on top end, short end and aperture. So give us an example of what you would miss most for your listed uses. The ones I would consider are:<br>

Travel - to get some architectural wide angle and short telophoto for portraits: 17-55 or 15-85<br>

School plays - none of the above unless you are really close to the stage. But at a push 24-105.<br>

Birthday parties - wide angle for indoor shots and short telephoto plus wide aperture for low light: 15-55 (or the Tamron)<br>

Street events: lighting decent so 15-85 (at the long end not much slower than the 24-105 f4).<br>

Overall, I would opt for 15-85 and expect high failure rate at the school plays. But that's my preference.</p>

<p>David - you have whole load of lenses and have still not given us any idea of what you are looking for from your next purchase. You say the 28-105 is a 'weak' walkaround lens. Why? You have to help us here. The fact you 'love' the 100f2.8 and the 10-22 suggests you have to compromise on either focal length or aperture.<br>

The 15-85, 17-55 f2.8 (or Tamron 17-50), 24-105 f4, and 24-70 all have diffferent compromises on top end, short end and aperture. So give us an example of what you would miss most for your listed uses. The ones I would consider are:<br>

Travel - to get some architectural wide angle and short telophoto for portraits: 17-55 or 15-85<br>

School plays - none of the above unless you are really close to the stage. But at a push 24-105.<br>

Birthday parties - wide angle for indoor shots and short telephoto plus wide aperture for low light: 15-55 (or the Tamron)<br>

Street events: lighting decent so 15-85 (at the long end not much slower than the 24-105 f4).<br>

Overall, I would opt for 15-85 and expect high failure rate at the school plays. But that's my preference.</p>

<p>You can't go wrong with either the EF 17-40 f/4L or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS</p>

<p>David, get the EF-S 15-85 IS and a good flash. Shoot your school plays and such with the 100/2.8. I have both the 17-55 and the 24-105. From all I hear and see in lens tests, the 15-85 matches the 24-105 for IQ, which I find is achingly sharp and contrasty. Its bokeh is not so great, however. The 17-55 is just as sharp, but loses a bit of contrast from internal flare in harsh light. I find it too short too often for general use. Indoors is where it really shines. All 3 are great lenses and worthy choices. I can't choose between the two, since they serve complementary not competing roles. If I needed to choose and carry forever and ever only one lens, it would not be one of the two, hence my recommendation for the 15-85. A good flash will equalize the f/2.8 advantage enough of the time. When you want really fast and shallow, f/2.8 isn't fast enough or shallow enough. (A 430EXii is almost a must have, given the 7D's remote triggering capability.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zeiss ZE 35mm f2.0</p>

<p>It depends what you walk around.</p>

<p>I'm also with Richard. The 24-105 sits on my 7D 90% of the time. If I need something wider, I use my 10-20. Longer, the 70-200. I rarely use the 10-20, as I find 24 to be sufficiently wide in most cases except very close indoor shots or broad, sweeping landscapes...neither of which I commonly shoot. More often, I find myself reaching for length.Your situation may be different, but you already have the 10-22, so you really don't need something that covers this range.</p>

<p>I find <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6316717">Diamandis Totief</a>'s argument weak. If you love your 10-22, the 24-105 is a perfect complement. Why buy a lens that overlaps more than half the range (15-85)? Switch lenses when you need to, and buy lenses that flesh out your collection in areas you're struggling with, rather than buying a lot of overlap, especially since it seems you already have a few lenses that overlap quite a bit (Canon 28-105MM 3.5-4.5; Canon 28-80MM 3.5-5.6; Tamron 19-35MM 3.5-4.5). Also, all the EF lenses fit APS-C cameras and avoid the edges, where all of the problems lie...so you're getting the sweetest part of fabulous lenses. How can you argue against that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why buy a lens that overlaps more than half the range (15-85)? Switch lenses when you need to...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly, because any overlap stays in the bag with the other lens. Once the lens is on the camera, there is no overlap. It either reaches, or it doesn't, in which case you can then choose which overlapping range you'll switch to. ;) You'll note that the 24-105 overlaps the 70-200 by a significant proportion also.</p>

 

<p>On my Canon 40D I always kept my Ef 35mm L 1.4 on it as a walk around lens, but that was because it was what suited my personal needs.</p>

<p>If I plan walking light, I mount the 50 f/1.4 on my 7D and sometimes take the 20 f/2.8 with me if I should need something wider.<br>

Although I have a 28-70 f/2.8L, I rarely use it any more these days. I prefer walking around with the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8.<br>

I'm no big fan of the zooms. If you look at your pictures you often will see that 80% or more are shot with the same (your favourite) focal length. Mounting a prime lens in this range will give you better results than most zooms can deliver, and if you should ever need another range, switch the lenses. It doesn't take too much time after all :)</p>

<p>Kind regards,<br>

Christian</p>

<p>Vote for 15-85. I had the 17-40L and 24-105L with my old 5D, but since moving to the 7D and away from income based photography, I had a good hard look at my needs which sound similar to yours. The 17-40 was not long or wide enough on crop. I dismissed the 17-55 2.8 for the same reasons. The 24-105 ran it close, but the wide angle made the difference for me. The IS on the 15-85 helps in low light and I use primes if I need shallow DOF or want to travel really light. My normal set up for walk around with no particular aim is 15-85 and 70-300 DO.</p>

<p>I have been looking for the same thing...I also own the Canon 7D and am looking for a multi-purpose lens. I shoot wildlife, kids, indoors, outdoors, auto racing, and anything else I find interesting. I have decided on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM(looking to get it used to help with the cost, plus it has been discontinued and replaced with a more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 II:()...it will cover quite a range, has good reach, and will work both indoors and outdoors:) It looks like you already have the wide end covered so you may want to consider the 70-200?</p>

<p>There are some size, weight, and handling issues with the 70-200, especially the f/2.8. I do see the benefits, though, and have done exactly that rather than change lens. On a full frame, 70mm isn't too very long. That's already wider than the 50mm when mounted on the 7D. On APS-C, 70mm is a bit too long and the near focus not quite close enough even when you can frame pleasantly. I do like its reach. Very often, I end up cropping wider shots for the more interesting shot buried inside. But that's way after the fact, with lots of time to reconsider and examine the details at leisure.</p>