Lenses under 100mm

<p>I am getting a 7d and need help with lens selection under 100mm. Currently I have the 100mm 2.8 macro and the 100-400L. My main interest in photography is wildlife, but I have come to enjoy landscape and macro. I am also the one who does the family photos, which means indoor shooting in relatively low light. Some of the family members are pets and kids that do not sit still for picture taking. I plan on getting the 10-22 wide angle and I am leaning toward the 17-55 2.8, but am I concerned that I may be missing too much range from 55-100. My other thought was to get the 24-105L and learn to use flash better in low light. I had the 17-85 4-5.6 at one point, but was very frustrated with the slow shutter speed indoors. I realize that a prime (ie 85mm) would be a fix, but I not like having to change lenses a lot. The 24-70 is appealing too except for the weight. When I travel I am often on small planes with very strict weight limitations. And the rumor mill is whispering that the 24-70 IS may coming soon...(more weight and money) Looking back at pictures using the 17-85 I found I was generally at either end of the focal range, but definitely more in the wide angle range. I would appreciate any input!</p>

<p>I would take a hard look at the 15-85. Goes significantly wider than your usual APS standard zoom and is fast enough for most picture-taking with the 7D. Image quality that I've seen so far is really fine. I would supplement with a 50/1.4, which is also compact and opens up new dimensions for your photography.</p>

<p>If you're looking for L lens quality, you can't beat the 24-105 f/4L. It's my all around day to day lens on my 7D when I don't need UWA or long telephoto. Solid IQ and the IS is a plus as well.</p>

<p>If you're mostly going to use the UWA end, you could take a look at the 17-40 F4L (might be too slow for you..) or the 16-35 f2.8L. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS might also be a good choice.</p>

<p>In my experience the 24-105 f/4L is a great lens but not wide enough on APS-C. It barely gets somewhat wider than normal. Which is fine if you intend to use it on the long side most of the time, but makes it less of a "general purpose" lens, especially when the OP says "definitely more in the wide angle range."</p>

<p>17-55 worth considering -- do not think 55-100 range is critical (very often), especially as you shoot landscapes, wildlife, (and macro). personally, i do very little work between 55 and 100. when i need more reach i usually need a lot more reach -- i generally use a 70-200, mostly between 135 and 200. perhaps the 55-100 range is more important to you...<br>

optically, 17-55 as good as any L -- i think it's better than any current zoom in this range, L or otherwise.<br>

would imagine the wide end of 24-105 (on a 7D) could be frustrating for many landscape subjects.</p>

<p>If you used your 17-85 more in the wide end you would probably be happier with a 17-55 over a 24-105 on a 7D. I did this same debate when I had a 40D and knowing I would go to full frame eventually I opted for the 24-105. I ended up getting a 10-22 because 24 is not very wide on APS-C and the 24-105 became pretty frustrating. Also keep in mind the 17-55 is an effective focal range of 27-88 so really you have a good range covered.<br>

<br /> Maybe ad a fast prime or 2 to your setup as well. The 28 1.8, 35 or 50 would probably work well for you in low light family situation. Nice because your camera is not bogged down with a giant lens and you can be very discrete.</p>

<p>maybe the 17-55mm and the 85mm f/1.8. I wouldn't get the 10-22mm until you use the 17mm for awhile and decide you really need it. I do just fine with my 17-40mm. I had the 10-22mm for awhile, but didn't use it much. I think the 85mm to fill the gap would be much more useful than the 10-22mm, especially since you do low light family photos. You can always stitch photos from the 17-55mm if you need super wide. The 24-70mm is nice, but not wide on a 7D. You could get that and the 10-22mm and forget about the prime. Its your decision.</p>

<p>My lens of choice on my 7D is 17-55 2.8 IS. I just purchased another copy of this lens (Last one got stolen at a wedding attached to my 30D). Why did I get it again? The 24-105 was way too long. So now I'm thinking about selling my 24-105 because the awesome 70-200 2.8 IS is now welded on my full frame. Final answer, 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>Welcome to the world of lens selection where you want a lens 20-100mm, with large aperture (F1), that weighs nothing, but sadly no one make the lens (or if they do the optical quality isn't worth the price). </p>

<ul>

<li>17-85 (or 15-85mm) too slow</li>

<li>17-55 not enough zoom range</li>

<li>24-70 too heavy</li>

<li>85mm one focal length.</li>

</ul>

<p>All of the lenses you are looking at are all fine lenses. However as you have found you are going to have sacrifice something since the ideal lens doesn't exist. You need to determine what is most important to you, Focal length, aperture, or weight. No one here can tell you what the correct balance is because we don't have your experience with your cameras and subjects. However you might find it good to consider the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Two lenses might fit your needs better than one. A fast prime plus a slower zoom might fit yours needs better than one lens. Or a slower zoom for outdoor use and a faster one for indoor use.</li>

<li>A slow zoom plus a 430EX flash. Use the flash indoors to speed up a 18-85mm for example. The 430EX flash can be remotely controlled by your camera which might open up some possibilities for you in the future.</li>

<li>You might want to rent some of the equipment you are considering to get a better feel as to what would work best for you. Or you might know someone with a lens you can barrow. </li>

</ul>

<p>I personally have the 24-105 (its a fine lens). In my case it is mainly used outdoors, frequently on a tripod, so a fast aperture was of no interest to me at the time. Later I found that in some situations I was always at 24mm so I added a 17-40 (the 10-22 will not work on my camera). Later I decided I wanted to do some night landscapes. Focusing a F4 lens at night is nearly impossible. So I got a fast 50mm which is only difficult to focus at night. Along the way I also added a flash.</p>

<p>How about starting with a 17-40/4L and 35/2 combo? And get the 10-22 when you <em>know</em> that you want to go wider, but only then?</p>

<p>I have the 24-105L and I use it as my main lens on an XTi. I like the combination of long zoom range and IS. However, it is only f/4 and if you need faster, you need faster. I don't usually need fast lenses, so I'm very happy having the focal range covered with a 10-22, 24-105 and 100-400. I also have the 60mm f/2.8 macro if I need something a little faster. Perhaps the combination of the 24-105 and a fast prime in the focal length you need for your portrait or group shots would fit the bill. In zooms, Canon has opted to provide long zoom range relatively slow or shorter zoom range faster (a limitation of lens design and cost, I'm sure). I know you said you don't like to change lenses, so it's really going to depend on what you use most of the time and whether you need the zoom range or the faster aperture.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your input! Everyone of you has great advice and your personal experience is very helpful to me. I like the black and white world of right and wrong answers, but there does not seem to be one here. You have given me a lot to think about, but probably most important is the idea of sacrifice. Rather than focusing on all of the things I want, I will try to look at it from the perspective of what I am willing to give up. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will try to look at it from the perspective of what I am willing to give up. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's about right. Unless you have very deep pockets, there are lots of sacrafices in photography.</p>

<p>Asta I would suggest that you are best with a wider lens. My lenses are all full frame but I do have a 7D. I find the 16-35 F2.8 II is much more useful than the 24-70 F2.8 on the 7D (and would be more useful than the 24-105). On these wider lenses you will not miss IS so I would not worry about that. I think this leaves you with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, 17-40 f4L and 16-35 f2.8 II. If you need wider then only the 10-22 or similar third party lenses are available for the 7D. I find that if I am just hiking or travelling with the 7D then the lens I use is the 16-35 F2.8 II (which is an expensive lens) and the 70-200 F4 IS. The advantage of the 17-40 or 16-35 is that you can later convert to full frame. The disadvantage of the 16-35 F2.8 II is the price as you will not miss the lack of IS</p>

<p>Although the 17-55 f/2.8 IS would be my first choice, an intriguing option has been opened up by Sigma. They have recently updated the 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 to a 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 HSM OS. So the lens is now 1/3 stop faster at the long end but has image stabilisation and HSM for fast AF. The older lens was well received and this promises to be as good if not better. The bonus is that it's half the price of the Canon at around $449US. I'm not someone that would pay big dollars for a crop format specific lens even one as good as the 17-55, since I also use FF, but something like the Sigma is a nice blend of FL range, speed and price and something I would consider for my 7D. I do have a 24-105L but 24 on the 7D is not very wide.</p>

<p>Also given the outrageous price of the Canon 15-85 for such a slow lens, I also would not consider that lens either. Another option is the excellent Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (not the new OS version), also at considerably cheaper price than the 17-55 IS and with still excellent IQ. However AF speed won't be as good as the Canon or Sigma.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I plan on getting the 10-22 wide angle and I am leaning toward the 17-55 2.8, but am I concerned that I may be missing too much range from 55-100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have nothing between my 17-55/2.8 IS and 135/2. I also have nothing between my 135/2 and 300/4 IS. Gap? What gap?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My other thought was to get the 24-105L and learn to use flash better in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-105/4 IS is a very good companian to the 10-22 (which I also have and adore), provided you do not need fast aperture and don't mind using flash. As both bothered me a lot I traded my 24-105/4 IS for the 17-55/2.8 IS two years ago. Never regretted that move.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

<p>I don't know if you are stuck on Canon lens? If not you should consider the Tamron 15-70 f/2.8 excellent color and sharpness, much less than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. The new Tamron has vibration Reduction, can't write on that lens as I don't own it. I do have the 24-70L and the 24-105L, which I will be selling soon, and the Tamron 15-70 f/2.8, for light traveling the Tamron is hard to beat. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is another excellent lens that will get you some of that area that you might be missing. I also have the 70-200 L non is lens, my Tamrons get taken out more often.</p>

<p><em>"Tamron 15-70 f/2.8..." </em><br /> <em></em><br /> I think Manuel is referring to the Tamron <strong>17-50</strong> f/2.8. It's a very good lens for the price. I also have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which is even better (on 400D). This combo is probably as close as one can get to 15-70 f2.8 at the moment. :-)</p>

<p>We have a 7D as well and also have the 100mm marco, along with the 50 f1.4, the 200mm f2.8L, and the 17-55 f2.8. As you can see, we have nothing from 55 to 100 and never, ever miss it. But that's us.</p>

<p>I strongly recommend the 17-55. Great lens for that body. It is the lens that stays on our 7D the most. Unless we are shooting wildlife of course.</p>