Lens for 7D?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by mike_lee|16, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. Just replaced my 50D with a 7D, now I am considering to replace my lens for better ones.
    I like to shoot landscape and portrait.
    What I have right now:
    Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM f/CANON
    Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX-DC HSM f/CANON EOS
    Canon 50mm F1.8 Mark I
    What I am considering:
    A: One of these: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II, Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro, Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8
    B: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X
    C: Canon 70-200 F4
    D: Canon 85mm F1.8
    For A, I am seriously considering Tamron as it is cheaper than Canon, and it is sharper than Sigma (http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48654)
    If I have A, do I really need B?
    If I have C, do I really need D?,
    or I can go with A + B + C, or A+B+D?
    Recommendations?
    thanks
     
  2. If it were me, I'd buy the Canon EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM: sharp wide open, focuses ultra fast & silent and the IS feature is worth its weight in gold. I've suffered compatibility problems with all my Sigmas and wouldn't recommend one.
    The Tammy is a good buy if you're really tight with money and IQ is your main concern over other features. I found its slow focus and wildly spinning MF ring during AF counterproductive. It feels a bit cheap for such an expensive optic.
    My 17-55 2.8 IS USM review:
    http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm
     
  3. Thanks for the fast reply, I actually meant the VC version of Tamron:
    SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF)
     
  4. Here we go again, a poor guy spends close to 2 grand on a Canon camera and the first lenses on the list are Sigma and Tokina.
     
  5. yes to all. 11-16mm is very different than 17mm. Also 1.8 on the 85mm is also a big difference from f/4 on the 70-200mm; more than 2 stops faster, that's doubling shutter speed twice. However, for the budget conscience, the 17-50mm and 70-200mm is a great combo. I personally have the 17-40mm f/4L and a 70-200mm f/4L with a 50mm f/1.8 and I don't find that I'm really misiing anything. If you shoot a lot of portraits, the 85mm may be nice, but you can always zoom with your feet with the 50mm. From personal experience, the one thing I feel I'm missing, or that I wish I had, is a 400mm lens. My 70-200mm is awesome, but I do a lot of wildlife and birds and a 400mm sure would be nice.
     
  6. If you've got the Sigma 10-20 why would you want the Tokina 11-16?
    Tamron 17-50 non-VC is said to have slightly better IQ than the newer VC version. Couple that with the 70-200 f/4 L IS and you'll definitely be better off than continuing with your Sigma 18-250, unless you need 201-250. If you can get the EF-S 17-55 and the EF 70-200 then probably better still. Do you shoot the 18-250 very often in the 201-250 range? Would you miss that range if you didn't have it?
    If you buy the 70-200 f/4 you probably don't need the 85 f/1.8 unless you find your self in the situation where you need 85 faster than f/4. Only you know if you like shallow DOF that 1.8 can get you. Do you shoot many portraits with your 50 1.8 open wider than f/4?
    Rather than scrapping one whole kit and replacing it with another whole kit you might want to try shifting one item at a time.
    I would imagine that you're lowest quality lens is the Sigma 18-250. So, that is probably the best place to start upgrading. You'll probably want to replace that with two lenses rather than with one. From the lenses you listed that would mean buying the Tamron 17-50/Sigma 18-50/Canon 17-55 and the Canon 70-200 f/4.
    After that you will know whether you need the 85 and whether you should switch out your ultra-wide.
    DS Meador
     
  7. The only lens I can easily recommend from your list is the EF 85 1.8
    The others, not really at all. I have a 7D (and a 40D and an EOS 3) and love the 85mm (ans also LOVE the 70-200 2.8).
    Here we go again, a poor guy spends close to 2 grand on a Canon camera and the first lenses on the list are Sigma and Tokina.
    Good call Harry!
     
  8. Can I add to this, just want to throw out I also have a 7D and I'm curious too hear what this community would recommend for close and environmental portraits?
     
  9. I'm curious too hear what this community would recommend for close and environmental portraits?​
    The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for close and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM and a super-wide zoom for environmental portraiture. That would be my suggestion, but you will probably hear dozens of different kit recommendations here.
     
  10. My vote is for EF 85 1.8, Always my choise to make medium shots -portrait-
     
  11. Actually I use it in full frame and cropped ... 70-200 is my other friend to go
     
  12. Mike - why did you buy the 7D? One reason I ask is that if I had been in the same position I would have upgraded the Sigma 18-250 before upgrading the camera - unless the 7D gives you specific functionality the 50D did not (yes, I normally hate this sort of after-the-fact advice but your decision process can point to what you are looking for).
    Do you have a specific reason for wanting each of those lenses or are you creating a collection of what you think you may need?
    To your questions of combination: the 17-xx and the 11-16 are quite different lenses. The 17-xx will give you the same coverage as 28mm on a 35mm film camera and for decades that was considered by professionals as plenty wide enough for landscapes. The 11-16 range can be difficult to master but does produce stunning shots when used correctly. So think about how often you have have been in a situation where you thought 'I wish I had a wider lens'. If it is once a year, is the cost worth it? FWIW the Sigma is a very viable alternative to the Tokina and gets strong reviews.
    If you have the 70-200 (I presume you mean f4L IS?), then whether you need the 85mm f1.8 will depend on whether you need to create a shallow depth of field. But why the 85mm? If your perception of the need for 85mm is because it is a 'classic portrait lens', then bear in mind it is a classic portrait lens on the 5D which is a 35mm sensor. Your 50mm will give about the same focal equivalent on the 7D and you still have f1.8 to go to. By the way, as you have the 50mm f1.8 I think the 50mm f1.4 would (for me) be a low priority unless, again, you need the f1.4 or the specific blur it gives to out-of-focus areas.
    In my opinion if you need to ask these questions then you probably don't need the 10-xx or the 85mm. Yet.
     
  13. Nice one Harry and Ken, I'm sure the original poster enjoyed being insulted when he came back to read the replies
     
  14. Thanks everyone, especially Harry and Ken :)
    So, if I don't give the list to you, what lens you guys recommend?
    I want to replace me lens one by one.
    Thanks
     
  15. BTW to answer DS's question, I don't shoot 201-250 very often.
     
  16. Thanks Puppy, I know 17-55mm is the best among these 3, but the price is also 300 more. ;-) but if it is really worth it, I can still consider it.
     
  17. I wonder what is wrong with Sigma and Tamron, they make excellent lenses. I have several L lens, several non L lens from Canon, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2.0, and the 20 f/2.8, I also have several lens from Sigma, the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Sigma 400 f/5.6 telemacro, and the Sigma 15mm fisheye. I have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75. I have the Tokina 17mm f/3.5. I think they are all excellent lenses, the one that would be at the end of the line would be a Canon the 20mm. I think too many of us get to thinking that only one company has the ability to make a great lens. One has to do a search to get an idea of what lens may be best suited for what one wants to do, i.e., Photozone.de , fredmiranda.com , and certaintly here at photo.net
     
  18. Get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Canon 85/1.8
    I have this combo with the 7D and S10-20 and I'm happy with it.
    The Sigma ultrawide is fine for now, no need for the Tokina unless you really need speed at the wide end. Most folks don't.
     
  19. Get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Canon 85/1.8
    I have this combo with the 7D and S10-20 and I'm happy with it.
    The Sigma ultrawide is fine for now, no need for the Tokina unless you really need speed at the wide end. Most folks don't.​
    You mean the non VC version?
     
  20. I have the non-VC version because it was the only one available at the time. If you can afford the VC version, then go for it.
     
  21. ((De-duped))
     
  22. I wonder what is wrong with Sigma and Tamron, they make excellent lenses.
    Really? Sigma and Tamron make better lenses than Canon's L's? Really? Even the non-L's like the 85 1.8 -- Sigma and Tamron are better? LOL. DSLRs are ephemeral -- they are just image capturing computers. Lenses are close to forever -- don't scrimp. There you have it -- my philosophy in 3 sentences that's likely to offend someone. (I've owned a couple Sigma lenses and was HAPPY they day they disappeared, no regrets in them not in my bag anymore... what was I thinking? I wish someone gave me straight talk then)

    Why sugarcoat stuff -- not in my bag. If something is better then say it. These tyro lens questions get asked over and over and over again. Just call it straight out rather than a laundry list of 10 lenses and the pros & cons of each and the OP is in a bigger quandary that when he started, LOL.
     
  23. Out of the options in section A, the only one with which I'm familiar is the Canon 17-55. It is a very, very good lens; optically, it's at least the equal of the 17-40/4L USM I replaced with it, and it holds its own against other L zooms I have. Is it better than the third-party options? That I can't tell you, but I'd be surprised if any of them were significantly better.
    If you have A, you still need B unless you want to lose the ultrawide angles that your 10-22 gives you. But you told us you already have B. What's wrong with the 10-22? I've never used it, but it has a very good reputation (and, like the 17-55, its optical formula more closely resembles an L zoom than a consumer zoom). The f/2.8 lens, of course, is faster, but you say you shoot landscapes and portraits. Landscapes are usually not shot wide open anyway, and an ultrawide zoom is not a typical lens for portraiture. And if you have a 17-55/2.8, then replacing the 10-22 with an f/2.8 ultrawide really only speeds up the wide end, where the f/2.8 lens is only slightly faster than the 10-22 anyway; if you need an f/2.8 lens in the 17-22 range, use the 17-55. So unless you can articulate why the 10-22 is inadequate, I have to say you don't need to replace it.
    C is a great choice; it's a big step up from the hyperzoom.
    Do you need D? Maybe, but unless there's a reason you have to buy it now, I'd say hold off. You have the 50/1.8 as a fast prime on the short end of the portraiture range. You're going to be getting a faster telephoto zoom when you replace the hyperzoom with the 70-200, so you're already improving your portraiture kit. My suggestion, then, is to see if that improves it enough, or if you still find yourself wishing for a faster lens on the longer end of the portraiture range (which is what an 85 is on a 1.6-crop camera). If you do, then by all means buy the 85; it's a fine lens. But it may be better to buy if only if it turns out you need it, rather than buying it right away and then wondering if you really use it enough to justify having bought it.
    There you go: my opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them :)
     
  24. Really? Sigma and Tamron make better lenses than Canon's L's? Really? Even the non-L's like the 85 1.8 -- Sigma and Tamron are better? LOL. DSLRs are ephemeral -- they are just image capturing computers. Lenses are close to forever -- don't scrimp. There you have it -- my philosophy in 3 sentences that's likely to offend someone​
    Some people can afford all L lens, some people can not, but I think my Sigma 100-300 f/4 is good as any of the L lens in the same class, I looked at all the macro lens that were available at the time when I bought my Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro and it was rated as high as most of the Canon L lens in the same class. My Tokina 17mm f/3.5 well only recently did Canon come out with a 17mm lens and it is a TS-E lens. For a walk around lens the Tamron 17-50 is tough to beat, excellent lens for a very affordable price, half of what the Canon non L 17-55 sells for. Did I read that you had the Canon 85 f/1.8? Why skimp why not get a full frame with a 135L, I did that and then bought the 85 for a walk around lens on my crop camera, and guess what it hunts more than my Tamron 17-50 in low light. I don't believe that you skimp because you buy non Canon lens, like I said before Canon is not the only company that can make a great lens, they do charge for their lens like they do, however.
     
  25. My favorite lens on my 7D is my 24-105 f/4L. While I realize this is not very wide on a crop-body, its wide end is close to my favorite focal length of 35mm (my prime FL of choice on my film bodies) and extends to a 35mm-equivalent of 168mm. Having this range to use as a walk-around lens is ideal for me, but the best part is that this lens is a superb lens that produces excellent image quality. There is also the 15-85mm that will give you the wider end, but I tend to lean more towards the long end of zooms. For something a little wider I use the 17-40 f/4L and for a lens with a bit more reach I use a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. These are the three lenses I use the most on my 7D, occasionally venturing out and about with the 85/1.8, but these three see the most action.
     
  26. Mike Lee,
    If the primary purpose is to shoot portraits and landscape, why all the different lenses? Spend the money on quality if you're doing portraits. Scott Kelby uses a 70-200mm f/2.8 (manufacturer) for his portrait sessions. 70mm equates to about 112mm for the Canon 7D (1.6x factor). If you need a wide angle lens for landscape, you have admitted to having a Sigma 10-20mm. Other than the 70-200mm, f/2.8 lens, you already have a good selection of lenses. What more?
    I use a Sigma 70-200mm,, f/2.8 lens for portraits. And I use a superzoom Sigma 18-270mm for general purpose photography, including landscape and architecture. At first I was hesitant in the suspect quality of Sigma glass. But one would have to enlarge their images up to 16x20 to see any differences in comparison to any of the Canon lenses. In other words and for the most part, the Sigma glass is good enough for most photography subjects.
    Good luck in your decision.
     
  27. Did I read that you had the Canon 85 f/1.8? Why skimp why not get a full frame with a 135L
    Money! Give me a two year 0.5% loan and I'll take you up on that.
    The 85 1.8, for its "low" price is superb and focuses "instantly". I love mine so much. I think Mike Lee got lots of excellent advice here across the board.
     
  28. If you weren't interested in taking better photographs you wouldn't be on photo.net asking this question. So save up and
    buy one L series lens instead of three or four poor ones.
     
  29. I have both the 7d and the 85 1.8. This is really a very good combo for
    portrats. The other lenses aren't that much . I have owened some sigmas
    before and they were my worst lenses ever. Save your money for some
    decent glass. Proffoonals say light, glass , body. If you spend x on your body
    you should spend 3x on your glass . Save your money and later on get some
    decent ones. Here is what I think is a good combo with the 7d
    8-15 f4 fisheye, 24-70 f2.8, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8
    It might take you years plus an arm and a leg to build your fleet. But that's
    much better than accumulating cheep glass that won't perform. You spent
    2000 on your body. You should spend some 6000 on your lenses . Regards
     
  30. Thanks everyone for the suggestion.
    What about Canon 15-85mm vs 17-55mm?
     
  31. Mike,

    I was in a similar predicament when I was looking at upgrading to a new range of very good lenses for my 20D which is soon to be replaced by a 7D. I wanted 2-3 lenses that would give me a range between 17 to 200 or 300mm.

    In the end I went with the following;

    1.) Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical
    2.) Canon EF 24-105mm L IS USM Zoom (APS-C equivalent ~ 38-168mm) and;
    3.) I already had the 50mm EF 1.4 which is nice on an APS-C with the 1.6 crop factor.

    I really researched option 1 hard, really hard because I wasnt convinced by any third party lenses. I was very interested in the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 but it's very pricey and more than some L series
    lenses such as the EF 17-40mm f4 L. The 16-35mm f2.8 L is a winner but is truly expensive - especially if your not exclusively a fill-time pro photographer.

    The more reviews I read, the more I was convinced that the Tamron is really a very good lens and massive bang for the buck. There are plent of great web reviews and plenty of positives for the tammy.

    Dont forget, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro is a world renowned macro lens. LensTip.com is a very reputable lens review site and says many good things at www.lenstip.com/22.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_90_mm_f_2.8_Di_Macro.html.
    They make the 17-50 also very reputable. Go to www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_%28IF%29.html.

    For many other good reviews you can find a fistful at Dyxum > www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical_lens268.html.

    Yes, the rule of thumb is fo "Canon L" if you can a) afford it and b) really need it. Remember, if you want to go into the pro Canon bodies, you cant use EF-S lenses so you need to have a really good choice of EF lenses if that's what you want. If one day I go for a 5D generation, iv'e got 2 lenses that will give me a great range and I would need to consider a fast Canon L at that stage.

    Yes, the tammy does sound like a chainsaw sometimes focusing and isn't built like a Canon L - but there are small, inexpensive things you can do to rectify this on a big scale.

    I use manual focus a lot, especially for weddings in crowds when AF gets distracted and there are two simple things you can do that improves APS-C lens usability, being a) swap out current focusing prism with a 'matte' focusing screen and b) get a great little gizmo for the 10-7D series cameras called a TENPA 1.36x Viewfinder eyecup magnifier which gives 100x magnification for general purpose shooting (wondeful for MF).

    I am truly impresses with the tammy and after using if a few times, I got some extremely good pics from it with great colour rendition, tones and sharpness.

    http://www.photo.net/photo/11060550

    http://www.photo.net/photo/10883732
    http://www.photo.net/photo/10975350

    --

    Hope this helps with your decision!

    Damon
     
  32. Really? Sigma and Tamron make better lenses than Canon's L's? Really? Even the non-L's like the 85 1.8 -- Sigma and Tamron are better? LOL.
    Yes indeed, they are sometimes better. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than Canon 17-40/4 L because it has an extra stop and more focal length. Sadly, Canon's L line is crippled by the fact that all L lenses must be full-frame.
    I have both Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and Tamron 17-50/2.8. The Canon has stabilization and is very slightly sharper at some settings (17 mm and 50 mm corners when wide-open, which doesn't matter much in practical use). This is pixel-peeping; in real life both lenses are sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. However the Tamron, while noisy, focuses more reliably. It's also much lighter and smaller. I'm leaving next week to go traveling and the Canon is staying home. The Tamron is coming with me. It's the better travel lens.
    I have both Canon 85/1.8 and Tamron 90/2.8. The Tamron is slightly sharper, has better bokeh, and doesn't suffer from annoying purple fringing / halation. I think if you were to compare Canon 50/1.4 with its Sigma counterpart you'll get a similar conclusion.
    That said, if you're looking for a better alternative to 70-200/2.8 L mk 2 you're not going to find one. L is generally the best - but not always.
     
  33. Sadly, Canon's L line is crippled by the fact that all L lenses must be full-frame.
    I think that is an advantage. L = Pro and according to Canon EF-S/APS-C ain't pro. They make the rules. I don't know.... the day Canon makes an EF-S lens an 'L' is when I switch systems.
    Does anyone claim the 3rd party lenses focus as quickly, accurately, and silently as Canon's L's in this thread or similar (ala the 85 1.8 which excels here)?
    The 16-35mm f2.8 L is a winner but is truly expensive - especially if your not exclusively a fill-time pro photographer.
    What does that mean? Many amateurs have a lot more discretionary $$ than a fulltime pro.
     
  34. Here's my combi: efs 15-85; ef 50 1.4; ef 70-200/f4
    if you plan upgrade to full frame in future, ef 17-40+ef 24-105+ef 70-200/f4 or ef 135 2
     
  35. Now I am considering the following:
    Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC version
    Canon 70-200 L F4 IS
    Reason:
    will go to FF when I am ready, don't want to invest too much on a crop lens. So Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 is a good fit.
    Canon 70-200 F4 IS is expensive but I can use it on FF camera as well.
    As for 85mm F1.8, I will wait until I really need it...
    So any problem with my decision?
    thanks
     
  36. Mike,
    I don't see any problem in your decision at all and it's always good to have some EF lenses in your back pocket for a FF body. This means before you buy one, you can even hire it out over a weekend with the lens kit you have before making the big splash.....
    For the price and truly great performance, the tammy is very hard to beat and you won't break the bank account. You will almost have some leftover! (remember that a 67mm Hoya HD UV filter or equivalent is a must for quality digital lenses and the 17-50 non VC is a "Di" lens specific for digital cameras. You can get get them cheaper on e-bay or something from a Hong Kong distributor who often includes free shipping if you are in asia-pacific).With the left over change, you could also pick up a 50mm 1.4 / 1.8 instead of the 85mm which would be a 80mm equivalent on an 7D. Just a thought.....
    Enjoy and let the forum know what you think once purchased and tested.
    Damon :)
     
  37. Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I finally went with the following:
    1: Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical (non VC version)
    2: Canon 70-200mm F4/L
    I haven't tested the Canon yet, but I am very happy with the Tamron!
    Thanks!
     
  38. Mike,

    Im so glad your happy with the Tamron. I used it extensively for a wedding on the weekend - a first time for the lens and am very happy with the results.

    I have since found out about a well known professional Australian photographer that uses this lens (and other Tamron lenses) extensively with Nikon APS-C bodies.

    Go to http://www.maxwell.com.au/articles/tamron/travelling.html and www.photographybyshelton.com.

    Enjoy!
     

Share This Page