Which lens should I buy next?

[reyna_moreno]

<p>Hello Everyone! Thanks in advance for taking the time to hear me out! <br>

I own a Canon 7d, 50mm 1.4, 28-135mm(kit lens). I am now on the hunt for my next lens purchase. I was determined to buy the 24-70 f2.8 but after reading reviews after reviews, EVERYONE is complaining about the bad copies. For those that get a good copy, they love it. So I am torn between looking to buy something else beside it or just taking the risk and hoping for a good copy?<br>

I shoot just about everything. Newborns (which my 50 is fantastic but would really like a macro but that can wait), Families, Seniors, Children, Weddings..well everything. Which lens do you all suggest would be my best choice? I really would like a lens with great IQ. I like Sharp! <br>

I also considered the 24-105 but wish it wasn't f/4. But still open to any suggestions!</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>17-55/2.8 IS or 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS</p>

[redphoto]

<p>The 24-70 f/2.8 is the way to go. There are not good and bad copies of lenses out there. Often the problem is that people do not take the time to calibrate the lens to their camera. Every lens and camera is made with a very small tolerance range. Depending on the tolerance of your camera and the lens that you put on it, you can be right on or off. So if your camera is off -2 units and the lens is off +2 units, you will have a perfect combination. But is the lens is off -2 your system will not be off -4 and that will show as your auto focused images not having their focus on the proper area; ie front focused or back focused. It is easy to calibrate every lens on your camera using a target device like a Spyder Lenscal or a Lens Align unit. They are about $50-70 and you would micro calibrate each of your lenses. 'Bad' or 'off' lenses is mostly user error.</p>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>I had the same thoughts as you, although I only have the 50D at the moment I love my 50mm. I have just bought a 17-55 2.8 after months of consieration, its awsome and worth a look.</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot just about everything. Newborns (which my 50 is fantastic but would really like a macro but that can wait), Families, Seniors, Children, Weddings..well everything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll get more useful advice if you add to your post which of these is your highest priority, and most impeded by your current equipment. The more specific the better, e.g., whether you shoot candids or posed shots (narrow DOF is less useful for the former), and whether you use flash in shooting people (determines how much speed you need), etc.</p>

<p>If event candids (NOT formal wedding pictures) are your prime concern, then the focal length range you were considering is a good one for a crop sensor camera, IMHO. I shoot most of my candids in that range. I use a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 rather than the Canon 24-70, primarily because it costs 1/3 as much. It lacks FTM and probably does not focus as quickly, but it is sharp as a tack in the FOV of a crop sensor camera. It also weighs less than the Canon. That focal length range includes the classic portrait range (adjusting for crop-sensor FOV). The only time I have found it too long for that sort of thing is in group shots in small rooms. I once backed partway into a fireplace trying to get a good shot of a group.</p>

<p>All real macro lenses are fixed focal length. My shorter macro lens (EF-S 60mm) does fine for candids also, but I want the flexibility of a zoom.</p>

<p>I have the 15-85 that Arie recommended, and while I would recommend it for some purposes, it is very slow for indoor work and cannot give you narrow DOF.</p>

<p>One general point: once you get to a zoom range greater than 3X, you are likely to start losing optical quality. the 15-85 does very well in that respect, but it does have some problems from the range (pincushion and barrel distortion at the ends and a bit of CA. These particular ones are trivial to fix in software, but some of the optical problems that you can get with superzooms are not.</p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>I'd just get the 24-70mm 2.8L if that is what you want. I just picked up that lens too. :)</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I still have a 17-55 2.8 IS left over from my crop bodies. I only shoot full frame now so it's just sitting here. If you decide to get it, let me know. It is a great lens. v/r Buffdr</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>There's little doubt (at least in my mind) that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the lens for you, Reyna. It is to crop bodies what the EF 24-70/2.8 L is to full frame bodies, and it has IS.</p>

<p>You should be able to find one quite easily right here on photo.net. ;-)</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I have a 7D also, and I once had the 24-70. It's a fine lens. However, I gave it up in favor of the 24-105 for IS and the greater reach. I found that losing the stop of light was worth having IS and the reach for my photography. Would you be happy losing 65mm on the long end by switching to the 24-70? I'm not sure what you have against f/4...would you shoot the 24-70 wide open so much that this is an issue?</p>

<p>In reading forums, you'd think QC at camera manufacturers' factories is lousy. I have a feeling that a lot of "bad copy" stories are user error (or unrealistic expectations). That's not to say that bad copies don't exist, but lenses are tested at the factory to make sure they conform to specs. Bad copies that slip through are likely to be a rare exception.</p>

<p>What you need to really consider is where your current kit is limiting you...why are you no longer satisfied by your 28-135? Is there an aspect of technique that you could implement to improve, rather than buying a new lens? Or are you reading these forums extensively and becoming dissatisfied by all the superzoom bashing? Would your money be better spent expanding your focal range? It all depends on the kinds of shooting you do and where your lens won't do what you need.</p>

[jim_doty]

<p>You already have the 28-135mm focal lengths covered, plus a fast 50mm lens. Getting a 24-70mm or 24-105mm lens won't change your world much. Why not get something different. A Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens will open up a whole, new, super-wide and wide angle world for you. It will create all kinds of wonderful, creative options. </p>

<p>After you have explored your newly expanded world, you can decide if you want to replace your 28-135 with the 24-70 or 24-105 lens. Either lens is an excellent choice.</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>I also have the 7D and the 24-70 L 2.8 lens. This is my first prime lens, and I love it. It is versitile and sharp. I am very happy with it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are always two ways to decide on a lens:<br>

One is to determine what your photographic needs are, and buy a lens to fill that need.<br>

The second is to buy something really fancy and let the technology set the "purpose" -- Like a new tool in the shop, you will find things to hammer with it.</p>

<p>"To a small child with a hammer, the entire world is a nail."<br>

variously attributed to Kaplan, and many others.</p>

[ejder]

<p>A prime lens is a fixed focal length lens. Prime lenses do NOT zoom.</p>

<p>There are many copy variations with the 24-70. I have experienced it (4 returns to Canon to get it right), others have experienced it. Some people have AF problems, others have sharpness problems. I had a sharpness issue (not a focus issue) not related to any of my 4 camera bodies.</p>

<p>24-70 is a good lens when you get a good copy. It is extremely heavy and large for what it is, and I sold my good copy and my bad copy (after it was fixed). I miss it infrequently.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I'd say that it depends on your budget. Frankly you are missing out on the wide wide world right now. (everything wider than 44mm at any rate). I'd go with something like the 17-55/2.8 or the 10-22. If you need L build, the 17-40/4 may be a good choice. Either way, on the crop, the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 are not ideal choices (IMO) Neither is going to expand your capability much (though the 24-70/2.8 will more than the 24-105/4). I'd look for something that's going to <em>widen</em> your possibilities...</p>

[reyna_moreno]

<p>Thank you all for your responses! After considering all your opinions and reading some reviews I have decided that I should try out the 17-55mm 2.8. I have the 50mm 1.4 which is all I use for newborns so now I'm thinking I should just get a lens that would cover my portrait needs as well as weddings. I believe this lens will help me do that. Is this a good choice? also, Can anybody let me know if the image quality will be the same or better than that of my 7D and my 50mm? I love how well they work together but sometimes think the colors aren't very accurate or could be better?</p>

<p>Buffdr, are you selling your 17-55mm?<br>

please email me with info.<br>

<a href="mailto:reynadphotography@yahoo.com">reynadphotography@yahoo.com</a></p>