Serious Glass for 7D and 5D Mark ii

<p>Recently, I have bought those two bodies.<br>

I have had a few EF lenses.<br>

17-40, 4L<br>

50, 1.8, version 1 with metal built<br>

85, 1.8<br>

100, 2.8 macro... version one<br>

135, 2.8 sf<br>

200, 2.8L version<br>

70-200, 4L<br>

1.4 and 2.0 extension<br>

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

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?<br>

I think I eventually should have 70-200, 2.8L IS ii (what's the difference between i and ii?)<br>

I enjoy nature, macro and getting into event, portrait.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.<br>

Alberto.</p>

<p>yes, but i think need better than f4 in medium zoom range...</p>

<p>What's wrong with the 24-70 f2.8? Where are the bad reviews of it and what are the reviewers specific complaints?</p>

<p>I think we're gonna need a bigger bag. ("Jaws")</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>Seriously, if you cannot think of what you need you probably don't need another lens.</p>

<p>Some thoughts:<br>

A tiny wide angle? (Voightlander 20)<br>

A tilt/shift?<br>

A fish eye?<br>

A Lensbaby?<br>

A short macro (there's a Tokina 35mm if I remember correct)<br>

A trip to an interesting place.<br>

A book on photography or another visual art.<br>

A flash.</p>

<p>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.</p>

"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?

<blockquote>

<p>What's wrong with the 24-70 f2.8? Where are the bad reviews of it and what are the reviewers specific complaints?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, that is one serious lens.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Meanwhile maybe go and use the lenses you have?</p>

<p>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. <br>

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. <br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>A vacation and a chance to use it all</p>

<p>The best thing to do is to get out and shoot loads and loads, then think about what you are missing.<br>

One obvious purchase would be a 1-2T hard drive to put your work on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have had a few EF lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still have any of them?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since 24-70, 2.8L doesn't have good reviews</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

<p>photozone.de demonstrated that the focus is off...when it's on infinity, which is often the case while doing landscape.<br>

The extreme curve of field.</p>

<p><em>.......and i don't know where to get 28-70, 2.8L.</em></p>

<p>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)<em><br /></em></p>

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.

<p>24-70 is a fantastic lens. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Sold it. Bought a the 35 1.4L and could not be happier. What an amazing piece of glass!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>24-70 is a fantastic lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I repeat (a lucky buyer above)</p>

<p>Russian Roulette!</p>

<p>Perhaps it might be more accurate to describe you as an <em>unlucky </em>buyer?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>OH... I can back my claim up with a list of people who have had the same problem with this lens!</p>

<p>Maybe "unlucky". But where there is "luck" so there must be an absence of "luck".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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. </p>