best quality

[andy_muir1]

<p>hi everyone.<br>

ive just ordered an eos 7d(stepped up from a 400d)body only and need to buy a couple of good lenses<br>

i only had the kit lens(18-55) and sigma 70-300.<br>

as such ive never experienced quality lenses<br>

im thinking of similar sized lenses but i would like to know how do the usm is lenses compare to the l type lenses?<br>

is the difference big enough to justify the extra expense or has modern technology improved the newer is lenses enough?<br>

help much appreciated</p>

 

[geoffs1]

<p>In general it is a "you get what you pay for" situation with lenses.<br>

With that said, the modern low-cost lenses can be excellent optical performers (for example the EF-S 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS).<br /> I would expect that you would notice the improvement moving from the lenses you mention to "L" or similar items. For example, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII is an outstanding performer, at an outstanding price. The (much less expensive) 70-200mm f/4 IS (also a recent design) is also outstanding optically and mechanically.<br>

It really does come down to cost/benefit exercise when you're comparing the 10X price difference between the 55-250mm IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII... (for example).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There's USM and there's USM. The latest versions allow you to manually focus (for fine-tuning) etc. without turning off the AF. That's a major advantage over the old USM and the non-USM focus systems.<br>

Even the old non-IS 'kit' 18-55mm was better than its reputation, and I have no personal experience with the Sigma you have.<br>

For the 7D, I think you'd really like (and in my opinion, do best with) the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens. I own its predecessor and it's my favorite APS-C lens.<br>

If you need speed for low-light shooting, a good start are the relatively inexpensive primes lenses, including the EF 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. For more money, you can get even better lenses, but these are both top rate optics.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by "similar sized lenses"; do you mean similar focal lengths, or similar physical sizes? The 18-55 kit lens is tiny and light; it's probably the smallest Canon zoom. Any other zoom you get is going to be larger.</p>

<p>Regarding the USM: L lenses usually use "ring USM", and several non-L lenses use it as well. It's quiet, fast, accurate, and allows for full-time-manual focus, meaning that at any time you can grab the focus ring and turn it. All Canon's lenses with ring USM have the same features, whether they are L or not, excepting a small number of lenses with powered focus rings, like the 85/1.2 L.</p>

<p>Whether it's worth it depends on your budget and needs. I find full-time-manual focus to be extremely useful. Some other people rely entirely on autofocus, and for them it's useless. The speed of ring USM is impressive, and it's almost totally silent - most photographers will appreciate those perks.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p><a href="http://www.canonlensreview.com/">http://www.canonlensreview.com/</a></p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>is the difference big enough to justify the extra expense</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For many people it is. Especially for those with expensive cameras and those who want "best quality".</p>

<p>Then again, you can get stellar image quality even without going the L route -- by using the non-L <em>primes</em> (see JDM'S post). While the L primes may be the best of the best, they are more specialized in a way and due to their size, bulk and price not so well suited for casual shooting. And some of these "prosumer" lenses are not even <em>that</em> modern optically speaking...<br>

So any combination of 30mm (Sigma), <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a>, 85mm, 100mm, 200mm primes plus a super-wide zoom (e.g., Tokina 11-16mm) will produce outstanding images with better depth-of-field control than any L zoom.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Andy, you will want much better lenses than you already have. The CA in particular and other aberrations in lesser lenses will start to tell on the 7D. There is no quick, easy answer. It all comes down to dollars. You'll have to decide pretty soon your level of commitment to this hobby.</p>

<p>If I were in your position this moment, I would consider a Cosina Voightlander 40mm, bearing in mind that it's completely manual. I grew up with a Pentax MX and shot a few hundred feet of Tri-X and Ektachrome 200 using only the 50/1.7 that came with it. I miss its simplicity. The Cosina is a pancake lens with manual focus, adequate sharpness, and it is everything that my L zooms are not. It could be that you don't share my nostalgia, and I wanted to get that out of the way up front.</p>

<p>The Canon 50/1.4 is my top recommendation for your first new lens. It is relatively inexpensive, and fills almost the same need as the 40mm Cosina, which is important to me but perhaps not for you. It also is a very practical lens, whatever else you get in the future. Shot wide open, the 50mm on the 7D is roughly equivalent to the 85mm portrait lenses for fullframe. At f/2 and smaller, it is easily sharper than the expensive zooms I have that cover that focal length (17-55/2.8 EF-S and 24-105/4 L).</p>

<p>However, I sense you're looking for an affordable zoom you can use all day everyday and that will knock your socks off every time you use it and look at the photos. I like the 17-55/2.8, but often feel that it is not long enough for an all around lens. I have heard great things about the newer 15-85. It compares very favorably in sharpness, contrast, resistance to flare, and in price, in short, in almost every way a lens can be better. The reviews at the-digital-picture site are dependable and trustworthy. I feel you would be very well served with one of these, and a good flash, such as the 430exII.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D is good enough to show the improved IQ of a good lens.</p>

<p>What are you shooting? The 7D is a great bird and wildlife body, but if you're not shooting that then it'd be a waste to get a 300mm, for instance.</p>

<p>I would recommend that you go with a high quality zoom covering from wide to portrait length if you have no specific need. Forget about a MF prime unless you're specifically into scenics or a certain of street photography. Also, you should realize that the correction of geometric errors, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. can all be done automatcially in software like DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom. After correction, the IQ of the zooms now approach very closely to primes.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Andy, just use your existing lenses for a while. They will be ok for everyday photography. When you feel that there is a need for a better lens, to print larger or to crop more, then the advice above is relevant. The next step up from where you are would be a 55-250mm lens on the long end and an 18-55 IS. For more money the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 70-300IS or 70-200F4LIS will provide good quality photographs, probably all you will ever need. If you want to see what is achievable without spending too much get the Canon 50mm 1.8. The sharpness and colours from this will be representative of the better quality zooms. Good luck, remember, you don't need to go out and spend a lot of money to take good photographs, the person behind the camera is more important.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Sometimes, the requirement is not primarily about “USM” or “L series” and etc, but these elements just come, as part of the package.<br />I prioritize a <em>NON varying maximum aperture Zoom </em>and a <em>FAST maximum Aperture Zoom </em>as the main criteria.<br />In this regard, with only a 7D and to cover lens's range you mention: I would buy the EF-S17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM and one of the 70 to 200F/2.8L variants and an x1.4MkII or MkIII Tele- Extender.<br />On the other hand - we have a travel kit: 450D + EF35/2 + EF-S18 to 55F/3.5 - 5.6 + EF-S55 to 250 F/4-5.6 and that makes some really great Photos. . .</p>

<p>IMO, you need to describe more a particular: need; function; or requirement. Until then, I too suggest you use what you have, to help find out what it is, you are missing.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>There's USM and there's USM. The latest versions allow you to manually focus (for fine-tuning) etc. without turning off the AF. That's a major advantage over the old USM and the non-USM focus systems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, I think this needs unpacking a bit. There are three types of USM: ring USM with fly-by-wire manual focusing (50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, and the non-IS Big White lenses, of which only the 85/1.2L II is current); ring USM with mechanical manual focusing; and micro-USM. AFAIK full-time manual focusing is possible with ALL ring-USM lenses however old, although the fly-by-wire lenses have to be powered up. It is also possible with the 50/1.4, which uses a mcro-motor and a kludge to make it behave in a similar way to a ring USM lens. Micro-USM is a relatively recent development used to provide versions of budget lenses slightly improved from the micro-motor versions; I am not sure which if any of them offer full-time manual focusing. Micro-motor lenses apart from the 50.1.4, and the old Arc-Form Drive lenses (some of which are still current) do not offer full-time manual focusing. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Although this may fall into the "more than I want to know about elevators" category, I thank you, Robin, for a succinct explanation of the USM mysteries for people who are new to the terminology.</p>

<p>As I essentially said, the older USM "doesn't let you manually adjust focus" and is less desirable on that account. By older ones, I mean the first of the breed in terms of design history. I am well aware that some of the non-focusing adjustment USM lenses are still made. I have a couple of them. ;)</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>JDM-</p>

<p>The point that my father was making is that all ring-type USM lenses allow full-time manual. These include the very earliest USM lenses, such as the 300 F2.8L USM. The only ones that don't are the cheap micro-motor USM, which are basically kit lenses and the 70-300 IS. </p>

<p>Simple rule of thumb (and the oddball 50 F1.4 is the only exception I can think of): If it is USM and has a focus scale window, it has ring USM and offers full-time manual. If there's no focus scale it's micro-USM and has no FTM. </p>

<p>The 50 F1.4 has a focus scale and FTM, and from a functional point of view is meant to be indistinguishable from ring-USM. It is only the fragility of the weird internal mechanics that makes it remotely relevant that it is not ring-USM. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The 50 F1.4 . . . It is only the <strong>fragility of the weird internal mechanics </strong>that makes it remotely relevant that it is not ring-USM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> . . . that little cam, is as Fragile as the Australian Cricket Team.</p>

<p>WW</p>