robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>I'd like to get some feedback on lens choices..I'm about to buy a 7D and I'm wondering what lens to buy first. I'm tossing up the idea of either the Canon 24-105mm F4L or the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8. I shoot 90% landcape, abandoned buildings, but I have the opportunity to start portrait/model work. Any ideas would be fabulous!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Neither of those lenses is particularly wide on the 7D due to the reduced sensor size. Only you can say if the equivalent field of view would make sense for your own photography.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Do you prefer details or sweeping landscapes/entire buildings? For details a longer lens like 24-105 is fine. Otherwise a little wider (17-55/2.8 or 15-85) or even a lot wider would be better. The same goes for portraits; environmental, tight? Shallow depth of field? There's a lot to choose from. More info would help. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Matthijs..I'm a details kinda guy, especially with landscapes..I should also mention that I will have regular access to the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L and the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L, but won't be keeping those in my bag. With portraits, I like the look of great background blur. Better?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydesi Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Until I recently got the Sigma 17-50, the 24-105 practically lived on my 7D, and it stays in my bag. It's a great lens, and I have no reservations in recommending it, especially since you have access to a wider lens. I valued IS and the added range over the one extra stop of aperture.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Thanks Jay!<br> Its nice to here from someone that actually knows how to answer a simple question..some people here get way too technical with their answers to simple questions!<br> I've also thought about the Sigma 17-50..maybe I should take a second look at that lens to add to my purchase :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Ok, here's another one..between the Canon 24-105mm F4L vs. the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX..which one would you buy first?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romuald.janik Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Since you are thinking of Sigma 17-50 you could also consider the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. Very good image quality, and the IS helps a lot in low light. I used it on a 350D and now it is a principal walk-around zoom on my 7D.<br> Since I like also close ups/details I often walk around with the 70-200/4L...<br> Out of the two lenses that you mention I would choose the 24-105 (for the focal range.. - I had no first hand experience)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>You also need to take a good, hard look at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens. It has the additional virtue of being able to get in very close (although like all of these zooms, it's not a true macro).</p> <p>It's a wonderful lens covering from a nice wide angle to a telephoto range -- it is simply the EF-S (APS-C. "crop") equivalent of the older EF 24-105mm lens you are considering. Some people are happy with nothing on the wide end (24mm is a 'normal' lens on the 7D). I personally would find "regular access" availability of a wider (the 16mm) to be too limiting unless you carry it regularly and swap.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Its nice to here from someone that actually knows how to answer a simple question..some people here get way too technical with their answers to simple questions!</p> </blockquote> <p>It's also not nice to gripe about people who have taken the time to try to answer your "simple" question.<br /> If agreement with your original, and apparently preferred, choice is the criterion, just go ahead and get the lens you want.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Thank you Romuald.<br> I won't buy a Canon lens unless it's an "L" and has IS..same goes with a Sigma and the "EX" line with OS. What can I say, I'm picky :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Thank you once again Jay and Romuald..case closed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Only L with IS means you can't go wide. If it were me I'd get the EF-s 15-85 IS and use that until I'm sure which focal length I prefer for portraits. And when I do I'll get a nice prime in that range. But within your parameters: 24-105/4L IS plus 100L IS macro should be all you need. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Thanks again Matthijs..I think I'm going to pick up the Canon 24-105mm F4L IS and use that until I get used to shooting the 7D..we'll see where things go from there :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Cavan Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>For our two Canon "crop-sensor" bodies we have the 10-22; the 24-105 and the 70-200. The 24-105 is the favorite for both of us, it is a wonderful lens with a lot of variable uses. We're like you - it needs to be a Canon "L", or as close to that as possible.</p> Dave Cavan https://davecavanphotographics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>I know I wasn't too impressed w/ the 24-105/4, especially on the crop. Frankly, it's IQ just wasn't as stunning as I originally expected it to be. For portraiture it was no better than a 28-135 and the slow speed really limited my creative control. I know some people think it's the bees knees, but I found it distorted at the wide end, soft at the long end, and a 'bit' slow to get decent bokeh out of. I ended up getting a 24-70/2.8L to replace it, and was much happier with that guy.</p> <p>That said, I also own a Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM (used as a backup for the L during 'working' hours). While it isn't quite as good as the L equiv. It's proven better than the 24-105/4. I found it's IQ to be quite good, with great color, and equiv. sharpness. It also gave me considerably better bokeh. Of course it doesn't have IS (or OS ;-) ), so, depending on your level of skill, may be less useable than the 24-105/4 in certain lighting. Plus there's the extra 35mm of soft long end. That and the all-important red ring ;-) (oft considered the single most important factor!).</p> <p>Personally, I'd recommend trying some of the wider f2.8 zooms (17-55, 17-50, etc.) before committing to a 24-105/4, for your crop camera, they are cheap, and good! The IQ will likely be as good or better (within the focal range), plus the flexibility to go wider than eff. 35mm and f2.8 <em>+ IS.</em> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengt_rehn Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>"I shoot 90% landcape, abandoned buildings, but I have the opportunity to start portrait/model work. Any ideas would be fabulous!". Well, that statement would make me seriously consider the 5D mk2 instead of the 7D.<br> I know this is somewhat off the topic, but since you also consider the 24-105, I cant help to add this comment.<br> 24-105 4L is a nice versatile lens for a FF body for your intended purpose that the croped system dont match. The 15-85 zoom is between 1,5-2 stops worse when it comes to background blur compared to 24-105 on FF.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Have you considered the 17-55/2.8 IS? Ever since I went EF-S about 4 (5?) years ago (first with the 40D and then with the 7D) I traded 3 EF lenses (17-40, 24-105, 100 macro) for 3 EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60 macro respectively) and never looked back. Of the three the 17-55 has been my main lens and I shot tens of thousands of pictures with it. The combination of superb IQ, fast aperture (for shallower DoF and faster AF), very useful FL range and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809532/0#7482263">IS</a> made it peerless. I even sold my <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/607298/0">35/1.4 L</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/">Sigma 50/1.4</a> as they became redundant. I recently came back from a 2 months trip in India and again it was my main lens, accounting for the majority of my shots.</p> <p>Happy shooting,<br> Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpete Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 <p>Bengt, let me just say this..a friend of mine has a 5D MK2 and I've used it for a week..I hated it..I have another friend with a 7D and I've also used it..I loved it!<br />I ordered Sigma's 17-50mm F2.8 EX HSM OS.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydesi Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 <p>Sorry I'm late getting back to this, but I picked the Sigma 17-50 over the Tamron option in part because of filter size; it takes a 77mm filter like most of my other lenses (24-105 included). The Canon does, as well, but the Sigma cost much less and included a hood, as well. I haven't had any issues with Sigma lenses like others have, and this 17-50 is an excellent performer.</p> <p>I decided against the 15-85 because I dislike variable aperture zooms. Everything else about that lens seems great but that.</p> <p>I already had the focal range of the 17-50 covered between my 10-20mm and the 24-105, but indoors it's easy to need to go wider and longer than 24 pretty quickly, and I didn't want to be constantly changing lenses. The 17-50 works like a charm for that. The 24-105 or 70-200 come out when I need something longer.</p> <p>You'll enjoy the Sigma...it's a great lens for getting used to the controls on your 7D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now