# What lens for 7D EF-S or L



## Marine03 (Feb 15, 2012)

I normally enjoy shooting landscape etc and want to get some lens, I currently have an XSI and want to upgrade to 7D or 7D2 or 70D depending on how much I can save up.. But figured I needed glass first. So for a crop sensor what do most people like to use? Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough. Any thoughts?

Thanks


----------



## endfinity (Feb 15, 2012)

I, for one, uses EF-S 10-22mm on crop which is equivalent to 16-35mm on FF.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 15, 2012)

EF-S 17-55 2.8 might be more general purpose lens, so you could shot not only landscapes


----------



## BlueMixWhite (Feb 15, 2012)

I would go for 10-20mm, 24-105 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

Once you catch the L fever you will never go back. That being said, i've gotten rave reviews on the 17-55 and some of the high priced ef-s lenses seem quite credible. Rule of thumb, the more you pay, the more you will get out of it. And whether a lens is "wide enough"... what is your definition of wide enough? Casual landscapes? Interior architecture? Do you want to make a bedroom look like a livingroom or do you want it to be just wide enough to do a casual group shot here or there? The 10-22 or 10-20 sigma or 11-16 tokina are very wide lenses and yield wide enough for just about the widest applications you could really need without going fisheye, but they are very wide and may not be what you are looking for. Try before you buy.


----------



## Marine03 (Feb 15, 2012)

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?



They say it's the best EF-S lens. They say - if you don't switch to full frame camera like 5D2, you will be fully satisfied with the quality of this lens with the image quality comparable to L lens. "L" doesn't always means the best image quality. It's also built or weather sealing (sometimes). Professionalists using their lens work with them much frequent than hobbyist, so the glass has "harder" life. It has to be more resistant to treatment.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?



From what many have said, it's an L quality optics in a cheap body. It will be a great lens as long as you're not rough and drop it. =)


----------



## foobar (Feb 15, 2012)

May I throw in the 15-85? Widest standard-zoom for APS-C and tack sharp, especially at wider angles.

It's not f/2.8 but it's great as a general purpose outdoor lens.


----------



## Marine03 (Feb 15, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?
> ...



Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Marine03 said:
> ...



Once again you may have to define "real wide" because depending on your expectations, on a crop body, the 17-55 (17 on the wide end) may leave you wanting more. As I said before, in architecture shooting, the 17-55 on an average bedroom (not a master bed, but a spare bedroom), the 17-55 you may just get 2 walls in the frame. With the 10-22 or 10-20 or 11-16, you may get all 3 walls in the frame. You may not be shooting architecture, but just as a general perspective on what to expect with a crop body and those lenses.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 15, 2012)

I have an EF 20mm 2.8 from Canon (It has to be Canon's most underrated lens) - It is suuuuper shard compared to the 10-22 Canon and 11-16 Tokina - I know this because my good friends have them, and I borrow them on occasion. The only problem with the 20 is that it is not really wide enough for many applications.

I find that when I use the 10-22 I stay right around 10-12mm for most shots because thats the point of those wide lens. So, if wide is what you want, you will have to go with a non-L lens on any of those crop bodies. While the Tokina 11-16 has a higher aperture, the Canon 10-22 is the one I prefer because the images seem slightly sharper and just look a little better in general.

If you want, I can post samples from all of them so you can see for yourself.


----------



## 5dMkii (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Marine03 said:
> ...



If that's the case (shooting REALLY wide) then get Sigma 8-16. We have it on our 7D and the results are spectacular. Little warmer tone but it's razor sharp.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.



do you currently have an EF-S 18-55 kit lens with your XSI? 

If so, check it out @ 18mm ... and/or check the EXIFs of your pictures (there is free software to do this) to see what focal lengths you are mainly using ... and decide yourself whether 18mm focal length is "really wide" for you. 

If the answer is NO - and you want to it even "wider", then look at ultrawideangle lenses, e.g. the EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 etc.

If 18mm is "wide enough" for you ... then the next question is: do you intend to frequently shoot moving subjects (people/children, animals/pets, vehicles, etc.) often also in rather low light (e.g. everything indoor)?

If yes, you may want to look at the EF-S 17-55 which offers a very useful focal range and a wider aperture (plus Image Stabilizer) on top. It is quite fat, quite heavy and not cheap, but performance-wise worth every cent in my opinion. 

If you want somewhat more "reach" on the tele end [again, check with the kitlens @55mm] and if you plan to use the lens almost always in good lighting conditions (=outdoor, fair weather, flash, studio), then look at the EF-S 15-85 IS.


----------



## barryjphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

10-22 UWA
17-55 Walk around
ANY 70-200 L

As for primes, the wider ones make decent normals on a crop, i.e. 35 f/2, noisy but sharp and the 85 1.8 is a great head and shoulders portrait lens.


----------



## vlim (Feb 15, 2012)

I would say buy a used a 7D body and save some money for an L lens 17-40 f/4 L IS and a 70-200 f/4 L IS, you can even found them used and in great condition for a good price ! Lenses and your knowledge of how to use them are 2 most important things for making great pictures !


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 15, 2012)

I used the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 on my 7D and loved it. You might also consider the EF-S 15-85. It's supposed to be L sharp, but not as fast as the 17-55. You wouldn't need f/2.8 for landscapes though.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

vlim said:


> I would say buy a used a 7D body and save some money for an L lens 17-40 f/4 L IS and a 70-200 f/4 L IS, you can even found them used and in great condition for a good price ! Lenses and your knowledge of how to use them are 2 most important things for making great pictures !



At times I wish there was a 17-40 F4 L IS. =) But at this time there is only a 17-40 F4 L


----------



## The Bad Duck (Feb 15, 2012)

If you plan on continue using APS-C cameras then you should consider EF-s lenses. I used to own a canon 10-22 and I really liked it better then my 17-40 /4 L on my 30D. And still, I liked it better as a superwide zoom on crop then I do with the 17-40 on my 5DII. But I had to upgrade camerabody and I don´t look back. 

So, take a close look at 10-22, 17-55 /2.8 and 15-85. Non L? So what? Never mind that. The high quality ef-s lenses are great. Find out what focal lengths and f-stops you need, then take your pick. 

For landscapes you probably step your lenses down to f/11 or f/16 or something and use a tripod so maximum apeture does not seem that important. Perhaps Samyang 14 /2.8 is interesting? Manual focus and manually setting apeture but for landscapes that should be easily manageable.

Another thing with ef-s lenses is they are often lighter, smaller and cheaper then EF lenses and that´s all good. Anyway the important thing is that there are great non-L lenses out there. 

Take a look here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html 
You will find that the ef-s 17-55 /2.8 is rated above the standard L zooms 24-70 and 24-105 even when price is no object. You will also find that only the canon 70-200 zooms and the sigma 300-800 are getting higher scores. The other lenses are primes and often L primes with crazy high pricetags.

Good luck and have fun building your system (and shooting with it!)


----------



## ksuweh (Feb 15, 2012)

I own a 7D, 17-55, 35 L & 70-200 II L. The 17-55 is a GREAT lens! The optics are L quality & the body is rugged....just not L rugged. You definitely do get what you pay for! I have shot with my buddies Tokina 11-17 & it is extremely wide! I love that lens! The 17-55 is a GREAT general purpose lens & I think that it would make a good landscape lens, but the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens would probably be a better lens for what you have described your needs are. Plus, it is $300 cheaper. The L quality is VERY ADDICTING!! Lenses are the real investment! Canon might make the same version of a lens for 10 years or more, as long as you take care of them the resale value is always better on a lens than a body, bodies wear out & need replaced more often & the image you take can only be as good as the lens.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

The Bad Duck said:


> For landscapes you probably step your lenses down to f/11 or f/16 or something and use a tripod so maximum apeture does not seem that important. Perhaps Samyang 14 /2.8 is interesting? Manual focus and manually setting apeture but for landscapes that should be easily manageable.



Except that with crop bodies, especially the 7D, diffraction starts setting in around F7 give or take, but when shooting landscapes you can get away with shooting F7.1 because most the time you are focuses at or near infinity and everything will be in focus regardless unless you have objects in the extreme foreground, but if you leverage hyper focal distance, you should get great results at wider apertures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2012)

The EF-S 17-55mm is the place to start...IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. In fact, optically it outperforms the 17-40L, 24-70L, and 24-105L when they're all compared on APS-C. The 15-85mm is also quite a good lens, but better suited to outdoors due to the slow/variable aperture.


----------



## kdw75 (Feb 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-S 17-55mm is the place to start...IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. In fact, optically it outperforms the 17-40L, 24-70L, and 24-105L when they're all compared on APS-C. The 15-85mm is also quite a good lens, but better suited to outdoors due to the slow/variable aperture.



I had the 17-55mm on my 7D and sold it to buy a 24-70mm L lens just a couple weeks ago. I know copies vary, but I noticed that the 17-55 was softer, at least at the center, than my 24-70 is. My 24-70 also seems to have richer colors and better contrast. Then of course the build quality is noticeably better and it feels very balanced on my camera. Just hard to get used to the barrel being extended at 24mm.


----------



## nicku (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> I normally enjoy shooting landscape etc and want to get some lens, I currently have an XSI and want to upgrade to 7D or 7D2 or 70D depending on how much I can save up.. But figured I needed glass first. So for a crop sensor what do most people like to use? Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough. Any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks



I strongly suggest 17-40 f/4 L USM lens... very good IQ and at a good price. for shallow DOF i suggest 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

nicku said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > I normally enjoy shooting landscape etc and want to get some lens, I currently have an XSI and want to upgrade to 7D or 7D2 or 70D depending on how much I can save up.. But figured I needed glass first. So for a crop sensor what do most people like to use? Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough. Any thoughts?
> ...



Before i got my 5d2, i used the 17-40 as a general purpose lens on my 7d... not much zoom range but adequate... sharper at 17mm than the 40mm, but not really noticeable unless your pixel peeping. I used the 17-55 on loan from canon for a week and a half... it was good, did a credible job... didn't "wow" me but that's just me... different strokes for different folks... in the end the 17-40 had very good quality, excellend build and weather sealing, i could take it anywhere in rain/snow and was forward compatible as I moved to the 5d2 (and kept the 7d as a backup.) Go to a camera store and try them out before you buy, or you may get buyers remorse.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough.



Most people forget that you can easily assemble a panorama from a *static* scene with software like AutoPano. Just shoot around wildly without a tripod, import the pictures, press the button, done. I have to do this because my "shortest" lens is 28mm on a crop body - it takes a little time to assemble 3 vertical shots to one horizontal 3:2, but the results are very good. So you don't need a wide angle lens to "take it all in" once in a while. Ultrawide lenses like the 11-16 (I'll get one if I have the cash) are for creative effect, not shooting landscapes (refer to Ken Rockwell for this...).


----------



## szmigielDESIGN (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough.
> ...



I agree.

AutoPano is cheaper than a good wide-angle L lens, and shooting 9 - 24 images at 24-35 mm focal gives wonderful results - especially when you output your panoramas at 50% resolution. 

My workflow using 7D and 15-85 is this: I usually take from 12 to 40 pictures of one scene (mostly architecture, focal from 15 to 35 mm) using a tripod (so I have less work in post), create a planar panorama with perspective correction and export a TIFF at 50%. This gives me super-sharp picture at approximately 15 - 25 megapixels.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

szmigielDESIGN said:


> especially when you output your panoramas at 50% resolution.



You're correct - I forgot to mention that - I already reduce the resulting panorama to 66%, too. But with 3 vertical shots combined to one horizontal, it's still higher resolution than one native picture.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> szmigielDESIGN said:
> 
> 
> > especially when you output your panoramas at 50% resolution.
> ...



A few years ago I specialized in virtual tours and would use software like this to make my panos, but then there would always be some snag in the alignment or this and that and I'd take them into photoshop and perfect them in there, and then now with the photoshop 5, the automerge and auto blend has gotten so good and seamless i never get misaligned or blemished items and for me, it works seamless. My panos have died off as with technology getting better and cheaper and the economy going down the shitter, my clients are able to do their own tours... Not as good, clean or well lit as what i could do, but as far as they're concerned, free to them... So i've rebranded myself and evolved with the times...


----------



## RC (Feb 15, 2012)

Just throwing out another option and I realize it is probably not the best one for most crop shooters but here's what I did. 

My primary lens for my 7D was the 15-85. A lot of things about this lens I really liked but overtime the excessive distortion at 15mm and the lack of weather sealing became issues for me. So I sold the 15-85 and bought the 16-35 II and later added the 24-105. Yes a lot more money but I do enjoy the weather sealing and constant aperture. 16mm is barely wide enough for me and it is possible I could buy or even rent the 10-22 if I need to go wider.

I do agree as many have already posted the 10-22, 15-85, and 17-55 are probably the best general lens choices for most APS-C shooters. But if you got the funds and weather sealing is important, you might look at the 16-35.

My personal suggestion for how wide for landscapes would be at least 24mm FF which is 15mm crop--that is why I say 16mm is barely wide enough for me.


----------



## ions (Feb 15, 2012)

I was quite happy with my Tokina 11-16 and 24-70L combo, now that I have replaced the Tokina with the Canon 10-22 the range/combination works even better. 

If you truly want/need wide EF-s is the only way to go on crop. The EF mount stuff doesn't fill that capacity on a APS-C sensor though they can fill other capacities quite well. Other than UWA I'm perfectly happy with the EF mount options in the general zoom category.


----------



## lexonio (Feb 15, 2012)

I have a 550d, which is basically a 7D in a plastic body with a crappy AF. I used Sigma's 17-70 OS for a while, but then I bought 24-105 and that thing is just fabulous. Images are sharp, IQ is great and while the IS is nothing to tell stories about, it still does the job. I say get the 24-105, and if your max camera budget is around 1500$, I say you might have a shot at 5dmkII when the mkIII gets released. I'm planning to do exactly this kind of thing and fully unravel my already wonderful 24-105 on an FF body.


----------



## vlim (Feb 17, 2012)

> At times I wish there was a 17-40 F4 L IS. =) But at this time there is only a 17-40 F4 L



Oups, unvoluntary wish


----------

