Serious Glass for 7D and 5D Mark ii

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by christopher_diao|1, Sep 21, 2010.

  1. Recently, I have bought those two bodies.
    I have had a few EF lenses.
    17-40, 4L
    50, 1.8, version 1 with metal built
    85, 1.8
    100, 2.8 macro... version one
    135, 2.8 sf
    200, 2.8L version
    70-200, 4L
    1.4 and 2.0 extension
    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. What can I do with this range?
    I think I eventually should have 70-200, 2.8L IS ii (what's the difference between i and ii?)
    I enjoy nature, macro and getting into event, portrait.
     
  2. You have a huge park of lenses useful to shoot many different types of subjects, so it's very difficult to give you a suggestion. But I think you should consider a more versatile lens, like the 24-105 f4 L IS zoom: it shines on the 5D II and I think it's very good on the 7D, as well. Great image quality, L built and light weight: for me it's a must.
    Alberto.
     
  3. yes, but i think need better than f4 in medium zoom range...
     
  4. What's wrong with the 24-70 f2.8? Where are the bad reviews of it and what are the reviewers specific complaints?
     
  5. I think we're gonna need a bigger bag. ("Jaws")
    (-:
    Seriously, if you cannot think of what you need you probably don't need another lens.
    Some thoughts:
    A tiny wide angle? (Voightlander 20)
    A tilt/shift?
    A fish eye?
    A Lensbaby?
    A short macro (there's a Tokina 35mm if I remember correct)
    A trip to an interesting place.
    A book on photography or another visual art.
    A flash.
     
  6. You have a good arsenal of high quality lenses, do you really feel you are missing anything? Unless you feel limited by what you have now, I would suggest you better spend your money travellingn and taking pictures.
     
  7. "yes, but i think need better than f4 in medium zoom range..." - OP
    <p>You have just about every focal length covered from 17mm to 200mm. With respect, I'm not sure you know WHY you want another lens. What subjects are you shooting? What do you feel is lacking in your current lens cache? As for the 24-70L, I'm not sure I've ever read a bad review about that lens.
    <p>I think I see symptoms of lens lust ;-)
    <p>Check your EXIF data so far. What focal lengths do you use most?
     
  8. What's wrong with the 24-70 f2.8? Where are the bad reviews of it and what are the reviewers specific complaints?​
    Scott, Photozone has complained of copy-to-copy variation (as have many forum posters, more so for this lens than for many others) and of field curvature. Those sound like pretty objective comments to me, but what weight you attach to them is another matter. However, the 24~70 usually seems to test as slightly sharper than the 24~105 and has considerably less distortion at the wide end. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
    Christopher, I have used a dual-format kit for some years, and currently have the same bodies as you (7D and 5DII). What lenses you need depends on what you expect each body to be able to do. My usual walk-around camera is the 5DII with 17~40, 24~105 and 70~200/4IS, usually with the Extender 1.4×. When I want to use the 7D as a walk-around camera then the 10~22 replaces the 17~40, and I am less likely to carry the Extender. I would certainly not want to be without a 24~XX zoom, and would see that as a gap in your setup. My preference is for the 24~105 (lighter, longer zoom range, IS); your preference may be different. Assuming that your 70~200/4 is not the IS version, I would replace it with either the 70~200/4IS, or, if you don't mind the cost, bulk and weight, with the 70~200/2.8IS II that you have your eye on. You might then not need the 200/2.8.
     
  9. Check the mtf charts for the 24-70 f2.8 and compare it to other l lenses of the same range. Mtf curves is a scientific
    way of judging sharpness. Built quality is great on all L lenses. I have used the 24-70 with the 7d and the 5d and it
    performed very well. Both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are great lenses that you are missing in your range. I would
    spend the money traviling. Regards
     
  10. Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, that is one serious lens.
     
  11. To be honest, if you have to ask you don't need anything. The photozone review of the 24-70 is a bit of an outlier in the reviews I have read. They still give it the same number of stars as the Nikon version. I find it an excellent lens in practice.
     
  12. Get another lens when you find you need it. So for example if you wanted to do some wildlife photography you might well see the need for a 100-400 L or something like that.
    Meanwhile maybe go and use the lenses you have?
     
  13. Well, since you mentioned mid-zoom lens, I'm assuming you don't like carrying all those lenses around and switching frequently, then I would probably sell some of those prime lenses (if money is a factor) and just get 24-70 or 24-105.
    I went with 24-105 since it performs similar to 24-70 but with IS, but since it is F4, I am using my 50 1.4 for bokeh and faster shooting.
    One thing with 24-70 is that as you probably read somewhere, you have a slight chance of getting not so sharp copy, but if you can test and buy at a local shop (it can even be a NYC shop too) then you will probably avoid getting defective one.
    So it depends on what you want to shoot in what type of conditions, but 24-105 + 50 1.x can do same thing 24-70 does. And you can always compensate image quality difference with minor and quick postprocessing.
     
  14. What do you think I should get next?​
    A vacation and a chance to use it all
     
  15. The best thing to do is to get out and shoot loads and loads, then think about what you are missing.
    One obvious purchase would be a 1-2T hard drive to put your work on.
     
  16. I have had a few EF lenses.​
    Still have any of them?
    Since 24-70, 2.8L doesn't have good reviews​
    What's bugging you about it? Great lens in my experience, apart from the weight and lack of IS. Good for in-a-pinch Macro, sharp (with fast enough shutter speeds).
     
  17. photozone.de demonstrated that the focus is off...when it's on infinity, which is often the case while doing landscape.
    The extreme curve of field.
     
  18. .......and i don't know where to get 28-70, 2.8L.
    I'll sell you mine if you pay me enough for me to buy a new Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. (879 GBP would do it)
     
  19. When "doing landscape" you can focus manually with live view. That way you won't have Canon to blame if your focus is
    off. You control everything.

    You said that you need a midrange zoom that's faster than f/4. That leaves one choice: the 24-70.

    24-70 lenses tend to be tuned for near focus because they are used for events and PJ photography. The Nikon is similar
    in this regard. You can fine tune the focus if it doesn't work to your liking. Or you can focus manually as mentioned
    above.

    You have more lenses than I do and I don't feel that I need anything except an upgraded 45 mm TS-E II that Canon
    doesn't make yet. So, I'm not in a good position to suggest what you need next. I think you need to go out and make a
    hundred amazing photos with each one of those lenses. Then you'll be ready for something new.
     
  20. 24-70 is a fantastic lens.
     
  21. I support the claim personally of inconsistent quality of the 24-70mm F2.8L. After purchasing it I found the focusing to be extremely inconsistent. It got returned to Canon and they admitted it required an adjustment. They in fact were a little stunned at how much it was off at the longer focal length. After the adjustment I felt that it still didn't produce the IQ so many people claim this lens is capable of. If one reads completely the review from Photozone they are not so much down on the lens BUT they are down on the fact that it took so many copies of the lens to find one that actually focuses where it should. If "you" should be lucky enough to get a copy that does do that than good for you but IMO this lens should be missed because of this reason. Shame on Canon for not addressing this problem.
    Sold it. Bought a the 35 1.4L and could not be happier. What an amazing piece of glass!
     
  22. 24-70 is a fantastic lens.​
    I repeat (a lucky buyer above)
    Russian Roulette!
     
  23. Perhaps it might be more accurate to describe you as an unlucky buyer?
     
  24. I know many people who use this lens and get great results. Of course a 35L will be sharper, ever a 50 1.4 is sharper at 2.8 but thats not really a fair comparison. If you need a zoom in the 24-XX range you basically have 2 choices and both are pretty good.
     
  25. OH... I can back my claim up with a list of people who have had the same problem with this lens!
    Maybe "unlucky". But where there is "luck" so there must be an absence of "luck".
    If you get a copy that focuses where it should the IQ is good (for a zoom) BUT if u are willing to risk that than go ahead. Don't say people didn't tell u.
    Btw why are so many people here willing to defend Canon and take any criticism as it seems as a personal insult? They are a huge corporation and like all huge corporations are spending millions on lifting their consumer profile. If someone says they have a problem and many more people are complaining of the same problem with a product than IT MUST BE REAL!
    If i still had the lens I was referring to (and I don't cause it was sold shortly after) you would've been more than welcome to come over and shoot with it and tell me otherwise.
     
  26. 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.
     
  27. 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.
     
  28. 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.
     
  29. 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.
     
  30. 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.
    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!
     
  31. "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
     
  32. 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.
     
  33. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    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. What can I do with this range?
    You have a dual format kit (7D + 5DMkII).
    You have: 17-40F/4L; 50/F1.8; 70-200F/4L.
    Apropos RANGE, (FoV using TWO formats) the 24 to 70 (or 28 to 70) is superfluous: so I would not be considering it.
    Personally: I think you are missing something wide and fast to round off that kit - I would choose the 24L MKII
    And I would trade the 135/SF for the 135L.
    Trade the 17 to 40 for the 16 to 35 MkII
    Trade the 70 200/f4 and the 200/2.8 for one of the f/2.8 versions - you choose which one.
    And if your tele-converters are not Canon and not at least the MkII version then I would update them also.
    The 15/2.8Fish would be fun too.
    WW
    (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)
     
  34. 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.
     
  35. Canon EF 600mm f/4L
    Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L
    I always find it funny when people ask for lenses for their cameras, rather than for their photography. I just got a 5DII and it needs some lenses!
     
  36. 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.
    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:
    T1i & T2i both with battery grips and CP-E2 battery packs attached for the two mounted 580 IIs with StoFens.
    EF-S 10-22 (wish it was 2.8.)
    EF-S 17-55/2.8 (just lovely.)
    Sigma 50-150/2.8 II (fast, sharp, light weight but zooms the wrong way.)
    Sigma 20/1.8 (fast, adequately sharp but big and heavy)
    Sigma 30/1.4 (oh, yeah!)
    EF 50/1.4
    EF 85/1.8
    EF 100-400 L
    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.
    Respectfully
    Chris
     
  37. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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:
    00XLes-283659784.jpg
     
  38. 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 serious like the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM!
     
  39. 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
    Jim Ducey
     
  40. Dude ! you have way too many lenses and way too much money lol.
    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.
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. it's the quality...
    mid range zoom... and good quality zoom
     

  43. What do you think I should get next?​
    You have too much of the same already IMO, sell a few of the redundant ones and get a 400 5.6 and fisheye
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. 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.
    For portraits, it looks like you've got some great equipment to work with already.
     
  46. yes, i do think i have great portrait glasses
    just wondering if i should get the 70-200 2.8.. if so, which version..... it's very expensive to me...
     
  47. 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.
     

Share This Page