# Need daily lens suggestion



## farmdwg (Aug 19, 2013)

About to pull the trigger on a 7d body as I need the speed for football and baseball games. I have access to a 70-200 2.8 IS for this which is great, but I need some suggestions on what I should get for my daily lens. I will be doing the occasional video as well.

Here are some that I am considering.

Canon 24-105 f/4L IS

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS

I'm seriously all over the place here. The f/2.8 is very attractive for low light situations, but should I just get a 50mm prime for those situations? Not sure.

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2013)

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 24-xx zooms are great on FF, but on APS-C they don't give you a wide angle. IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.


----------



## Stig (Aug 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 24-xx zooms are great on FF, but on APS-C they don't give you a wide angle. IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.



+1

not an unusual dilemma, been there myself, went with 17-55, didn't regret it (until I went FF and wished I already had the 24-105 that is)... long story short, it is f/2.8, it has IS, and it is quite wide on crop... 

only thing that might throw you off is the need for weather sealing, or, if you know you wont need wide, but would like more reach (but I guess that's where the 70-200 would come in)

btw, just to mess up with your decision making a bit and maybe plant a bug in your head  ... I was also considering the 15-85 IS... not fast aperture wise, but I hear quite good IQ, nice range, IS, cheaper than 17-55...


----------



## farmdwg (Aug 19, 2013)

Thank you for the input. 

I've been mulling over the Crop vs FF issue as well, but I think I need the higher FPS that a crop gives me due to baseball and football. With that said, does that change the thought behind the approach to which glass I go with?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 19, 2013)

The 15-85 is very sharp and gives extra range either side of the 17-55. It's one of the best and most useful APS-C lenses made.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 19, 2013)

The canon 17-55mm efs is nice but also consider the sigma 24-70mm 2.8. Just have to hope on a good sharp copy. The canon one is really expensive. 

+1 to the canon 15-85mm suggestions. 15 is way wider than 17. 

If you're planning on upgrading in he future, ie full frame, then start buying EF mount lenses. Primes are very nice but honestly, zooms are more comfortable and more versatile for everyday outings.


----------



## Stig (Aug 19, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Thank you for the input.
> 
> I've been mulling over the Crop vs FF issue as well, but I think I need the higher FPS that a crop gives me due to baseball and football. With that said, does that change the thought behind the approach to which glass I go with?



well, my train of thought after reading the above would be: 1. you will be doing sports photography, but for that you will have the 70-200, so the lens you are looking for now will be just general "walk around" lens and the sports photography requirements don't influence the choice much, but 2. it means you decided you will go with crop for some time and that would make me lean towards good EF-S lens (the 17-55 if you want the best EF-S zoom, or maybe 15-85 for a bit more reach on both ends)

btw, you also mentioned shooting video... I don't, but I guess IS is helpful in many video situations... and I realize that every one of the lenses discussed here has it, I just thought ill mention it in case you would bring in another alternative later  

aaand one more thing...



farmdwg said:


> should I just get a 50mm prime for those situations?



yes, do it  additional to the zoom... if "just" the f/1.8, for the price, its great, it was maybe my best photo gear "investment" when I bought it having only slow kit zoom (the lens explained the concept of DOF to me  e.g. for portraits, gave me more low light possibilities, the experience of using a prime...)

Edit: I keep forgetting the new sigma 18-35 f/1.8 zoom, but you might want to look at that as well, limited range, no IS, but a f/1.8 zoom... ooone point eeeight!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 19, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Thank you for the input.
> 
> I've been mulling over the Crop vs FF issue as well, but I think I need the higher FPS that a crop gives me due to baseball and football. With that said, does that change the thought behind the approach to which glass I go with?



Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF _any time soon_, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 19, 2013)

I have to agree with the the general consensus.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great walk around lens but... people say it's a dust magnet as it isn't well sealed. I haven't had issues with mine though I haven't used it as much lately. I'm mainly shooting FF. I've used it for everything from events to product shots. The wide end is not wide, though and a 10-20 Sigma or EF-S 10-22 would be a nice addition, if you need something wide.

The point that has been made is important. If you plan to keep your 7D, or are confident that you would replace it with another APS-C based camera, it's the best choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF _any time soon_, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.



Depends on what 'any time soon' means. The high end EF-S lenses hold their value well. I lost ~$50 on the 10-22mm and ~$100 on the 17-55mm, after 1 and close to 3 years of use, respectively. If 'soon' is next month, fine. If it's 'sometime in the future, I hope' then get the best lens(es) for the body you have now.


----------



## barracuda (Aug 20, 2013)

I also recommend the 17-55, but you might want to consider the new Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 DC HSM Art lens. It has gotten a rave review from Bryan at TDP:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx

It's also about a couple hundred dollars cheaper!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF _any time soon_, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.
> ...



Quite right. _Any time soon_ is very relevant. Still, I see no trade offs with the OP only buying an UW zoom in APS-C format and a FF compatible standard zoom. The OP listed the Tamron 24-70VC as a possible choice. Other than the loss of 17mm at the wide end, the Tamron is, I believe, vastly superior in every way. Better build/weather sealed, better image stabilisation, less distortion, sharper, etc. As long as the OP doesn't miss those 17mm, where is the trade off?


----------



## thgmuffin (Aug 20, 2013)

No 17-50 F2.8?


----------



## SwissBear (Aug 20, 2013)

barracuda said:


> I also recommend the 17-55, but you might want to consider the new Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 DC HSM Art lens. It has gotten a rave review from Bryan at TDP:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx
> 
> It's also about a couple hundred dollars cheaper!



Also other reviewers like Lenstip are very favourable about this lens.

This Sigma lens is actually my next investment. For "general purpose" i'd couple it either with a 24-105L or the 85 f/1.8.
The 24-105 is indeed not very wide on a crop, but it's quality glass and together with a flash I really like it to to document events, with it's reach you can stay a bit more in the background.


----------



## rs (Aug 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing whether you will stay with a crop sensor camera or not will absolutely affect your decisions on lens selection. The fine EF-S lenses mentioned above will not work on a FF camera, they are for APS-C only. If you are sure that you will continue to shoot with a crop body, it is not so critical. But the convenience of using your (expensive) lenses on either body should not be underestimated. If you feel that you will "upgrade" to FF _any time soon_, then I would suggest that the only EF-S lens you buy should be a wide zoom, like the Canon 10-22mm or the soon to be released Sigma. The EF24-105 is an awesome walk around lens on a crop, but for the fact that 36-168mm FF equivalent is not very wide.
> ...


+1

As the OP is about to order a 7D, I'd guess that any possible migration to FF is years away, if ever. EF-S, and more specifically, the 17-55 is the way to go. I used a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS on crop for years, and while it does encourage lens swapping, I can't remember any times where I needed the 55-70 range.


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 20, 2013)

rs said:


> As the OP is about to order a 7D, I'd guess that any possible migration to FF is years away, if ever.



Hold your horses. Owning and of course using a 7D is exactly what drove me to switch to full-frame in the first place.

Based on my own experience I don't think a 7D is likely to keep people using crop cameras, instead I expect others to come to the same conclusions I came to: Having lots of pro features to play with, but being seriously hampered by the sensor's low-light performance? Purchasing both a 1D-X and a 5D Mark III in a hurry once those two cameras came out was my reaction to that. This is why I think Neuro's statement is right on the money.


----------



## Zv (Aug 20, 2013)

rs said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



The 10-22 and 17-55 don't hold their value that well. I lost about $120 on the 10-22mm (mainly due to a quick sale) and the 17-55 isn't bloody selling at all. Some sellers are selling it for ¥66,000, considering it's ¥105,000 new I'd say they are losing money on it big time! I'm sorry but the 17-55 is a good lens but I'd stay away from ef-s right now. Get a used 24-105L that someone is selling off from their kit. That way you can still use it on FF and if you sell it you'll likely get most of your money back.


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 20, 2013)

The 17-55 2.8 is the way to go. I had it when I owned the 7D, and it is fantastic. IMO it is the best EF-S lens Canon makes. I was able to sell it for almost as much as I paid for it (I bought it used). It only came off my camera when I needed the reach of the 70-700 f4 (another great lens for the 7D).


----------



## Jim O (Aug 20, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> Based on my own experience I don't think a 7D is likely to keep people using crop cameras, instead I expect others to come to the same conclusions I came to: Having lots of pro features to play with, but being seriously hampered by the sensor's low-light performance? Purchasing both a 1D-X and a 5D Mark III in a hurry once those two cameras came out was my reaction to that...



I'm not sure that most people who don't make *a lot* of money with their cameras or who don't have $10K burning a hole in their pockets go down that road.

Current Adorama prices:

7D:
New - $1499
Canon Refurb 7D - $999 (special now - they're $1199 at Canon)
Used (E) - $869

5D3:
New - $3499
Canon refurb - N/A (available at Canon store for $2,799.21)
Used (E) - $2989

1D X:
New - $6799
Canon refurb - N/A ($5493.20 at Canon store when available)
Used (E+) - $6249

You're talking about replacing a $1500 camera (one that you can get for $999 as a Canon refurb!) with $10,000 worth of cameras. Of course if you're going to buy those two bodies you'll also *need* a $2300 24-70 II which you might not get with the 7D. You might have the EF-S 17-55 2.8 and have no use for it.

I think a lot of 7D owners will wait for the 7D2, plunk down $2K or so for it and be happy staying with a crop sensor, depending of course on what Canon actually produces in the 7D2.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 20, 2013)

Zv said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



This makes more sense to me. The 24-105 is selling for a _very_ reasonable price and I used it for years (it was my first L lens) on my 550D with great results. My second L lens was the 17-40. That combo served me well for a quite a few years and I still have both. If the OP were to purchase the Tamron (like I ended up doing), the only possible "upgrade" to that lens would be (arguably) the EF240-70 mkll. I don't even see that as an upgrade, since I highly value the stabilisation of the Tammy. In either event, the OP wouldn't _need_ to upgrade if he later purchased a 6D, 5Dlll or whatever and could use them on both cameras.


----------



## TexasBadger (Aug 20, 2013)

You do realize that the Canon motor drive MF had a top speed of 3.5 frames/second. It would burn through a 36 exposure roll in ten seconds! That was plenty fast for sports photography back then. The 5D3 has a framerate of 6 fps. I would be more concerned with a camera that has a better autofocus system and better high ISO performance. Shutter speed is usually the critical factor in sports photography. If you also want some reasonable DOF, you will need to increase the ISO. Do yourself a favor and get a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 5D3. You will not regret it and you will not end up with crop lenses down the road. Six frames/second is a lot faster than you think. Once you start processing your images you will see what I mean. If you cannot get the shot at 6 fps, you probably won't at 8 fps. Especially with an inferior autofocus system and inferior high ISO performance. When shooting sports, the goal is usually one great shot of a particular play or action. Not several mediocre shots that are out of focus or so noisy that you have to overprocess them to get rid of noise. When you overprocess to reduce noise, you reduce sharpness. Now what advantage does that extra 2 fps get you...


----------



## dstppy (Aug 20, 2013)

What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses? 

I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.

I *DO* have a bad case of 'accessoritis' or 'upgradaphilia', so to the OP, if you're the type that's not content with technology and constantly upgrading . . . the EF-S lenses are great, but you may have some regret down the road.

I know, admitting I have a problem is the first step. ;D


----------



## FEBS (Aug 20, 2013)

I fully agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very good choise for APS-C.

However, a year ago I did also buy a 7D. After some months I regretted that I didn't choose directly for a 5Diii. In mean time, I did allready buy the 5Diii. Even for sports this is a very nice device. I'm not directly missing the difference in FPS. I know I have less photos to choose from, but more of them are right in focus. So at the end, I have more keepers.

I still have my 7D as a backup. I thought I would need it for the supplemental reach, but cropping on the 5Diii is that much beter.


----------



## phoyager (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> About to pull the trigger on a 7d body as I need the speed for football and baseball games.


Good cam for this but be aware of the not-so-nice ISO performance.


> I have access to a 70-200 2.8 IS for this which is great,


If sport is your primary area of interest you will probably want to upgrade to a 300 soon. The new 120-300 from Sigma would be an option, 'cause colleagues say it's optically close to the old 70-200/2.8; just the AF is a bit slower.



> I need some suggestions on what I should get for my daily lens.





> Canon 24-105 f/4L IS


From my personal experience a very nice bread-and-butter lens. Sturdy with [depending on the specific sample of this lens] good to pretty-nice image quality. On the short end it's a bit long when used with a 1.6 crop (field of view 38mm) but the crop gives it quite a bit more reach on the long end, which from my experience is many times nice to have.
The f4 might be a bit slow, but it's not too bad unless you work a lot under low-light conditions without the ability to add flash. In regards to your implicit question about low light, 2.8 and a 50mm I would say that most of the time you will want to have smth faster than 2.8 when working in low light while rather needing a wider lens, especially on crop. Therefor I wouldn't so much aim for a 50/1.4 but rather a Sigma 35/1.4 or a Canon 24/1.4.



> Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC


I bought this lens and while the image quality is really good it drove me crazy that everything works contrary to what Canon implements. Might be a lesser problem when you have only 1 Body and don't change lenses a lot, but it's still smth you should try out [by renting the lens] before you spit out the cash. My lens is looking for a new owner after just a few days of use....



> Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8


I never owned or used this lens and while it's certainly an option I wonder if it's worth the money. Especially if you take into account that it's EF-S and therefor useless in case you ever upgrade to APS-H (1DMkIV) or Full Frame.



> Canon 24-70 f/4L IS


Have no experience with this lens. But despite the presumably better image quality when compared to the 24-105 I would still choose the latter because of the 105mm vs. 70.


*Conclusion:*
If I were you, I would buy the 24-105. I bought mine in 2006 and it's still working on a daily base despite many harsh working conditions like rain, dust, expeditionary off-road, riots and war. Not all of these lenses offer the same IQ and it was a difficult moment, when I had to return a borrowed 24-105 which, as I found out, was quite a bit sharper than mine. 
FWIW, in all these years I had three repairs: First one in early 2012 when it wouldn't zoom correctly, one in the end of 2012 because the lens developed a severe Zoom-creep (from wear) and another one in 2012 when I decided to replace the rubber-sealing on the mount during a C&C because it looked like been attacked by mice... :


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 20, 2013)

I'm in the same position as the OP. I've got an older camera but am wanting to upgrade for my kids' sporting events coming up this school year. I chose to upgrade my glass first, then the camera. I've got the 17-55 and agree that it is a fantastic everyday lens. I don't have experience with the 15-85, but I also hear it's a great lens too, but not sure what to expect once you go inside (may end up being a non-issue). Admittedly, there are some days that I wish my 17-55 went to 85mm for situations where I just can't get any closer.

Regarding EF-S/EF. That's a tough one. I chose to upgrade my EF-S glass with EF-S for now. In the long term I'll move to FF with the expectation that I'll be able to purchase a bundle like the 6D/24-105. With my EF 70-300 (soon to be a 70-200 F2.8 - just waiting on a sale), I won't miss out on the majority of my shots being covered from 24-200. I can pick up a WA lens later if I feel I need wider that 24mm. 

I can then either sell my rebel kit, or keep it and let my kids use it. Either way, I have fun with what I have and won't regret "money lost" as I feel I gained more than the cost. Of course ask me that again if I had all L glass and a 1DX, then I may have a different answer


----------



## farmdwg (Aug 20, 2013)

All this info is great and very helpful (adding more cloud to the decision making process ). 

As for crop vs FF, I don't see myself going FF any time soon since I don't see FF keeping up with the baseball/football speed requirements.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> All this info is great and very helpful (adding more cloud to the decision making process ).
> 
> As for crop vs FF, I don't see myself going FF any time soon since I don't see FF keeping up with the baseball/football speed requirements.



Eeehhhh ... Speed requirements??? 1DX 12fps, 70-200 f2.8L IS II or 300 f2.8L IS II or 400 f2.8L IS II ... all with the fastest most accurate AF you can get. Where does crop have an advantage???


----------



## farmdwg (Aug 20, 2013)

It all comes down to $$$$. 

7D new is $1050 and the 1DX is what $4k?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 20, 2013)

dstppy said:


> What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses?
> 
> I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.
> 
> ...



I sold my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 last year for about 850 and my refurbed 10-22 for 600. I "lost" about 100 on the 17-55 and less than 50 (including taxes, shipping, etc.) on the 10-22, so I was able to recoup about 90% of what it cost me to purchase the lenses.

There are so many used 17-55s and 10-22s floating around that buying new makes less and less sense. Canon refurb with a sale is usually a good deal. I'm guessing that EF-S lenses tend to have lower resale value because they are transitional for those that do move to FF. Some L-lenses also have lower resale value. Think of those that purchased a 24-105 in a retail box at 1000-1100 a year or two ago. The kit value used to be 800-900, and now it's dropped to 600-700. That's worse resale value than the 17-55. Again the 24-105 is a transitional lens.

Those that get gear when it is first available tend to pay the most. Those that wait for rebates and sales pay less, and those that buy refurbed or used pay even less. If you hold onto the lens for a few years and then try to sell it, you'll get roughly the same price, so buying the gear at the lowest price is key.


And +1 to those recommending the 17-55 f/2.8. The smaller sensor needs all the light it can get, which is why Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is such an attractive option.


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 24-xx zooms are great on FF, but on APS-C they don't give you a wide angle. IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.



+1 General purpose often means indoors, and unless you want to wear a flash on your camera or use the pop up, you will want the f/2.8.

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-55. I never use the 24-105 indoors, it isn't wide enough or fast enough. 



AlanF said:


> The 15-85 is very sharp and gives extra range either side of the 17-55. It's one of the best and most useful APS-C lenses made.



Ask yourself how much you shoot indoors with your general purpose lens. I had a friend that had a 15-85 on a 7D and we were at a cubscout pinewood derby event, in an church gym. A flash wasn't useable due to the distance most of the time. He couldn't get decent pics. After that he sold the 15-85 and bought a 17-55.

Regarding buying all EF lenses because at some point you will upgrade to FF. I personally think this is flawed thinking. Buy the best lenses for the camera you have and will be using. Especially if it is the main lens that will be on your camera most of the time. If you get a FF camera, you will either keep the crop camera and still use the lenses, or sell the camera with the lenses. With Canon lenses you don't lose much money on the resale.


----------



## farmdwg (Aug 20, 2013)

Hijacking my own thread...

So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...

What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?


----------



## dstppy (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Hijacking my own thread...
> 
> So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...
> 
> What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?



FPS was the only real advantage the 7D currently has IIRC. 

The Mark 2 will most likely have something to reposition itself . . . if it wants to survive, but the 5DmkIII is a real charmer, once we all got past the sticker price


----------



## 7enderbender (Aug 20, 2013)

It think you are pretty much set with the 7D and the 70-200 for the sports stuff. So that leaves you with the question what else you're going to do with the camera.

Lot's of advice here based on people's own preferences but I'm not clear yet what your other use may look like. Do you have a need for wide angle (such as architecture, landscape, etc)? Do you have any use for fast lenses (and to me that means control over depth of field and not so much being able to make pictures in the dark...)? Will you try to shoot portraits and if so what is your preferred focal length for that? Again, how important is good "bokeh" for you? Is weight and size a concern? Do you want to get into flash photography or not at all?

So in other words I'd be very careful with some of the blanket statements here about what constitutes "general purpose" use. Everyone has a very different view of that I suppose. And some of this is always a compromise - especially with the limitations of a cropped sensor if you answered "yes" to any of the questions above...

I personally would always go with the fastest lens I could afford in the desired focal range. But that's me and may be completely irrelevant for your preferences.


----------



## farmdwg (Aug 20, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> It think you are pretty much set with the 7D and the 70-200 for the sports stuff. So that leaves you with the question what else you're going to do with the camera.
> 
> Lot's of advice here based on people's own preferences but I'm not clear yet what your other use may look like. Do you have a need for wide angle (such as architecture, landscape, etc)? Do you have any use for fast lenses (and to me that means control over depth of field and not so much being able to make pictures in the dark...)? Will you try to shoot portraits and if so what is your preferred focal length for that? Again, how important is good "bokeh" for you? Is weight and size a concern? Do you want to get into flash photography or not at all?
> 
> ...



Thank you for the insight.

Being outdoors and shooting the sports is priority #1. However, I do know that once I get into the gear I will want to explore other options. Landscape, portraits, etc. When not shooting sports, I do know that I want to take photos that pop and have that "gooey" feeling when not in focus. 

Please be gentle, I'm coming over from a very old Nikon D70 with bad glass.


----------



## 7enderbender (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Hijacking my own thread...
> 
> So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...
> 
> What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?




Yes you can. No, the AF is not quite as good as on the 7D or any of the newer FF bodies. But it is plenty good and gets a bad rep unnecessarily. Like I stated in my other posting, my preference is fast primes for mostly people photography. I'm a sucker for shallow DOF so I'd choose a 5DII any day over any crop camera. And I'd rule out a 6D also, but that's a whole other topic. Still very happy with my 5DII and have no intentions to upgrade before it falls apart.

That being said: if your most frequent and most important use really is sports than a 7D may still be the better choice. Like I said it's always a bit of a compromise even if money were no issue. There are always trade-offs.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Hijacking my own thread...
> 
> So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...
> 
> What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?


You can get a 5D2 refurb from Canon for around $1760, so a bit more than a 7D new. Of course a Canon refurb 7D is currently $999 shipped at Adorama today.

There are pros and cons of each. For sports and action, I think the 7D is the superior camera. For landscapes and nature, the 5D2 may be better, unless you're trying to capture birds in flight or a running gazelle. The 7D has dual DIGIC 4 processors, hence why it can acquire and process more images quickly. Neither has a DIGIC 5+ processor as do the 1D-X, 5D3, and 6D.

I have handled both and honestly the 7D feels better in my hands.

Of course, and despite what the naysayers here might say, you *can* shoot sports with a 6D. It is certainly not be the best tool for the job, but for anything other than situations where you need to shoot 6-8 fps, its IQ kills the 7D and beats the 5D2, IMMHO. Both of the those two have better AF than the 6D, except in extremely low light, where the 6D's center point is the best in the business. When my kids were young I had an AE-1 Program that I manually focused and I managed with a motor drive that was 4 fps at best. I used fast film, aperture priority, and have lots of good prints... and memories. With its excellent high ISO IQ, you can use a smaller aperture to get increased depth of field, use the center point, or even MF. and you *will* get lots of good shots.

Incidentally, a refurbished 6D with a full one year warranty can be had from Canon for $1599.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_29252

Did I help muddy the waters?


----------



## dstppy (Aug 20, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> farmdwg said:
> 
> 
> > Hijacking my own thread...
> ...


*slaps forehead* He said Mark 2.

Ignore me, I need to upgrade to Glasses 2.0.


----------



## Stig (Aug 20, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> It think you are pretty much set with the 7D and the 70-200 for the sports stuff. So that leaves you with the question what else you're going to do with the camera.
> 
> Lot's of advice here based on people's own preferences but I'm not clear yet what your other use may look like. Do you have a need for wide angle (such as architecture, landscape, etc)? Do you have any use for fast lenses (and to me that means control over depth of field and not so much being able to make pictures in the dark...)? Will you try to shoot portraits and if so what is your preferred focal length for that? Again, how important is good "bokeh" for you? Is weight and size a concern? Do you want to get into flash photography or not at all?
> 
> ...



+1

and to the discussion of EF-S vs EF and trading... I think that maybe specially people who don't make much money from photography do it as a hobby and then don't look at lenses as an "investment" and if you can have the right lens for a few years and lose $100 in the mean time, isn't it worth it? you couldn't even rent it for a long time for that money... so If you want investment buy... I don't know, Canon shares before you send them money for the lens  but that is a discussion for some other forum, I just think that its like buying big all terrain tires for your roadster, because you might buy an SUV in future 

btw, other options... you mentioned landscape, probably no need for a very fast lens there, but you might want wide...portraits, if I may, I would suggest the 50mm f/1.8 (an equivalent of 80mm on FF, not a bad FL, good price and it would work on FF as well  )...



Jim O said:


> Of course, and despite what the naysayers here might say, you *can* shoot sports with a 6D. It is certainly not be the best tool for the job, but for anything other than situations where you need to shoot 6-8 fps, its IQ kills the 7D and beats the 5D2, IMMHO


+1
and out of curiosity... the sports you will cover, you mentioned football and baseball, so I'm thinking outdoors, but are they mostly held midday, or also evenings, if so, are they well or poorly lit? In other words, would you need to up the ISO and with that, do you care about a discussion "more cross type AF points vs higher ISOs / 7D vs 6D" for example?


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg - one thing that I found that helps me decide is to go to 500px.com and type in the camera and lens in the search bar. It gives me an idea of what the kit can do. Most shots are professional quality shots with proper lighting, etc., but some of them look like they are non-pro (probably parents sitting on the sidelines) and you can see the IQ in those situations.

For example - go to that site and type in "7d football 70-200" in the search bar. You can see some pro shots, but there are some of a high school football game at night, most likely from a parent. There's also one at a Pro game in what appears to be a covered stadium.

Can't comment on the crop vs FF - that's almost a religious discussion, but if this helps, I can get acceptable shots of my kids sports and college games from my T1i with 3.4 FPS. You won't get the wind up and the pitch though (more like wind up or pitch), but you can get the slide into home. 6D is 4.5 FPS.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> Hijacking my own thread...
> 
> So I'm getting a lot of vibes on FF...
> 
> What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?



Yes, you can do sports with the 5D, but its AF is more limiting. Taking pics at softball games was easy because the subject (batter swing/pitcher pitching) is not moving quickly/erratically or they're far enough that DOF is not that challenging. Soccer was more of a challenge when the player gets close and their changing directions. Tended to frame loose and use the center point for servo only.


----------



## phoyager (Aug 20, 2013)

farmdwg said:


> What does a used 5DMkii vs new 7d do here? Am I crazy? Can I do sports with the 5D?


IMO you should stop this thought right now in his tracks, 'cause I doubt that you will be very happy with a 5D Mk II. While it's certainly possible to shoot nearly anything with any camera, the 5D2 certainly wouldn't be what I would choose to shoot sport, maybe with the exception of chess and Tai chi. 
I'm not saying that the 5D2 is a bad camera, but it wasn't designed for such use. Downsides are: low FPS and a AF which is far from ideal for fast moving objects and you would be more or less stuck with the center AF-point. Of course, if you know the sport very well and are able to anticipate the moment to release the shutter you can take excellent pictures, but the amount of keepers will be significantly lower than with a 7D. The full frame is another 'downside' if it comes to sports, 'cause you don't have the crop-factor and will need longer and more expensive lenses. 70-200 on a 1.6 APS-C results in framing equivalent to 112-320mm while on FF it's just 70-200. With a 7D you will also warmly welcome the AF with its 19 AF fields and sophisticated options.



farmdwg said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > It think you are pretty much set with the 7D and the 70-200 for the sports stuff. So that leaves you with the question what else you're going to do with the camera.
> ...


*+1* on what _7enderbender_ wrote.

For other stuff than sports the 5D2 has its upsides (better image quality at low ISO, 'sexier' depth of field), but since sport is your #1 priority and money is of relevance, I would - again - suggest that you go with the 7D. Otherwise I probably would suggest a 1D4 or a 5D3.
With the 7D you will have no problem "exploring other options" and can decide in a year or two if you want to change the body. Well, this brings us - again - to the topic of the sustainability of lenses...  Changing lanes is easier (and cheaper) if you don't have to consider the cost of new glass. 
If you want to play with portraits, the 50/1.8 wouldn't be a bad choice, 'cause it's a rather cheap but not bad lens from what I hear (sorry, no personal experience with it.)
On the other hand if you want to try landscapes you probably should think about investing into a wide angle lens like to 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20.




wsmith96 said:


> farmdwg - one thing that I found that helps me decide is to go to 500px.com and type in the camera and lens in the search bar. It gives me an idea of what the kit can do. [...] you can see the IQ in those situations.


Personally I would be very careful! Postprocessing can do A LOT to a image and this is much more valid when we are talking about 'online'-resolutions. It's a quick job to bring a bad image, be it because of the photogs skills, the lens and/or the camera, to a point where it looks fabulous, as long as viewed only on a screen at low resolution. Online galleries are swampy terrain when it comes to judge a photog or some gear.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 20, 2013)

phoyager said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > farmdwg - one thing that I found that helps me decide is to go to 500px.com and type in the camera and lens in the search bar. It gives me an idea of what the kit can do. [...] you can see the IQ in those situations.
> ...



I agree with you that it's not fool proof. I figure that some level of post processing will be done at some point in the OP's workflow. It was just a suggestion.


----------

