# Looking for advice



## fancypants (Jan 29, 2012)

Hi All

I've been looking through all the posts and have learned a lot from all the information you have provided. I've been saving for a while now to get my first SLR and now I have the money together to finally purchase it and some lenses .

I have limited experience using a SLR, mainly just mucking around on my brothers 50d. I will be mainly shooting landscapes (I enjoy sunsets, sunrises and night shots), motorsport and some portraits and wildlife. I'm have decided on purchasing a 7d and a EF 70 - 200 f2.8L IS II USM, however I'm still unsure as to what other lens I should purchase, the more I have been reading on the shorter lenses the more confused I have been getting as to which way to go a zoom or prime. My budget will allow the purchase of either the EF-S 17 - 55 f2.8 IS USM, EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM or EF 24-70 f2.8L USM. Is there a great deal of quality difference between the lenses (I know L's are heavy) and would the lack of IS be a major problem in that focal length? Or do you have any other suggestions of lenses that would fit that budget?

I have set aside money for buying a battery grip, spare battery, cards etc and also some lessons to help me get the best out of the camera as I know it is going to take me a while to make the most of the camera which is a challenge that I am really looking forward to.

Thank you very much in advance for any help provided.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 29, 2012)

If you are shooting landscapes, the EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM is a great second lens despite the price tag. It's a very well built lens and it's optically excellent as well. The lack of IS on wide angles is really unimportant in my opinion. It would hardly be noticeable.


----------



## rmblack (Jan 29, 2012)

I agree with Minnesota Nice, under the condition that you might be upgrading to a FF body in the next 5 years. 

If you plan to stick with an APS-C sensor camera, I would vote instead for 1 of 2 different options. Either buy only the ef-s 17-55 2.8, or buy the 24-70 2.8L and the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8 UMC. 

I've read a lot of good things about this lens either on these forums or another, can't remember/find the thread  

A manual focus lens, but for landscapes it's not really an issue. Make sure to try out using live view to compose your shots, you can digitally magnify on the screen to make sure you have sharp focus.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2012)

For your 7D, the 17-55mm or the 15-85mm EF-s would be my first choice as a everyday lens. Lenses like the 16-35mm L are best on FF bodies and do not really give you anything better for a 7D.

The 70-200mm is awfully long for a only lens on a crop camera, even on FF.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 29, 2012)

Go for the 16-35 F2.8L IS USM II - I took more than half of my pictures with it, it's the perfect complement to the 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II.


----------



## Z (Jan 29, 2012)

In contrast to some of the other replies given, I'm going to recommend you get the EF-S 17-55 instead of the 16-35 for several good reasons. You shoot a crop camera and in my opinion, you should go for the best lens to suit your camera. By picking the 16-35 over the 17-55 you gain an extra 1mm on the wide end ... okay ... but you give up 20mm on the long end and image stabilization, you also lose an extra $450 from your pocket. The 17-55 is optically superb, for crop cameras it matches *or exceeds* the overlapping L series equivalents.

There are a couple of disadvantages to the 17-55 though, namely


no weather sealing
the propensity for 'zoom creep' - this is when the lens is pointed directly up or down and gravity moves its focal length slightly - my copy does this, but it isn't a big deal to me and doesn't happen during normal use
build quality is good but not great like the L lenses - if you are planning on subjecting your gear to harsh conditions, bumps and clunks, maybe go with the hardier 16-35


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 29, 2012)

Z said:


> In contrast to some of the other replies given, I'm going to recommend you get the EF-S 17-55 instead of the 16-35 for several good reasons. You shoot a crop camera and in my opinion, you should go for the best lens to suit your camera. By picking the 16-35 over the 17-55 you gain an extra 1mm on the wide end ... okay ... but you give up 20mm on the long end and image stabilization, you also lose an extra $450 from your pocket. The 17-55 is optically superb, for crop cameras it matches *or exceeds* the overlapping L series equivalents.
> 
> There are a couple of disadvantages to the 17-55 though, namely
> 
> ...



The major disadvantage of the 17-55 in my opinion is that it is an EF-S lens. I did not consider buying it because I was always sure that I would upgrade to APS-H or FF one day which I have done meanwhile. The 17-55 does only work on APS-C...


----------



## traveller (Jan 29, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> The major disadvantage of the 17-55 in my opinion is that it is an EF-S lens. I did not consider buying it because I was always sure that I would upgrade to APS-H or FF one day which I have done meanwhile. The 17-55 does only work on APS-C...



The "in case he wants to go full frame in the future" is always a dilemma, but let's consider the fact that this is his first camera (and a very good one at that). Unless he has a compelling reason for wanting full frame, I think that the 7D will be more than enough camera to keep him happy for a few years while he learns photography. The 17-55 commands very good used prices so if he can afford it, I think that it is the best single lens buy for his needs and will complement the 70-200 well.


----------



## capertillar (Jan 29, 2012)

agreed, when it comes to technology thats upgrading every few years (1-3), its always difficult justifying "waiting" for the new version to come out, only to pay 1.5x the current price of the current model. if you dont need FF, theres no reason to go down that route, especially with the flexibility of lenses you can choose from with a 7d... and it'll prob be a year before the 7dm2 hits store shelves... so something to consider

nevertheless, i am personally waiting for the 5dm2 successor, in hopes of the feature set that we're hearing about comes to fruition...


----------



## Rampado (Jan 29, 2012)

I vote for the 17-55! the used value is good and is the best choice for 7d!


----------



## elflord (Jan 29, 2012)

fancypants said:


> I have limited experience using a SLR, mainly just mucking around on my brothers 50d. I will be mainly shooting landscapes (I enjoy sunsets, sunrises and night shots), motorsport and some portraits and wildlife. I'm have decided on purchasing a 7d and a EF 70 - 200 f2.8L IS II USM, however I'm still unsure as to what other lens I should purchase, the more I have been reading on the shorter lenses the more confused I have been getting as to which way to go a zoom or prime. My budget will allow the purchase of either the EF-S 17 - 55 f2.8 IS USM, EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM or EF 24-70 f2.8L USM. Is there a great deal of quality difference between the lenses (I know L's are heavy) and would the lack of IS be a major problem in that focal length? Or do you have any other suggestions of lenses that would fit that budget



IS isn't a major issue for shorter focal lengths. 

The full frame wide to normal lenses aren't optimal on a crop body. For example, the 24-70 is not very wide especially if you're shooting landscapes. The 16-35mm is wider, but you lose some range because it's an ultra wide full frame lens. 

So the 17-55 is a better choice than the wide angle L lenses. The Tamron non-VC 17-50mm also has very good image quality and is less expensive than the Canon. 

If you're looking into getting a prime, I'd recommend the 50mm f/1.4 as a good starting point -- it's inexpensive and a really nice portrait lens on APS-C.


----------



## RC (Jan 29, 2012)

I'm a 7D owner myself and had to make a similar decision just a few months ago. When I bought my 7D I also bought the 15-85. Even thought the 15-85 is a fantastic lens and an ideal walk-around focal length, I sold it because of excessive distortion at 15mm, no weather sealing, and its variable aperture. I did consider the 17-55 but due to a lack of weather sealing, I went with the 16-35 II. I absolutely love this lens, it is by far my most used and favorite lens now. My recommendation is to take a serious look at the 16-35, rent one if you can. 

The 16-35 is now my walk-around lens for the most part, I also have the 70-200 f4 IS. I recently added the 24-105 to fill the gap between. My only prime is the 100 Macro L, but my wish list has the 35L and a 50.

Since you mentioned landscape photography, you might want to check out the EF-S 10-22. Have not tried it myself but lots of positive reviews. I seriously considered the 10-22 plus the 24-105, that might be a better option for you with landscape and portraits besides they're close to the same price as a 16-35 II.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 29, 2012)

17-55 is awesome on a crop body, but the 16-35 is really nice too, but there is a decent price gap between the two.


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 29, 2012)

Get the 17-55 - it's wider than the 16-35 on the 7D. It'll also hold it's value so you can trade it in on a different lens down the line. If you want a weather friendly lens, take the savings and get the 17-40mmF4L - cheap, light and FF ready if you go that direction.


----------



## coltsfreak18 (Jan 29, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> Get the 17-55 - it's wider than the 16-35 on the 7D. It'll also hold it's value so you can trade it in on a different lens down the line. If you want a weather friendly lens, take the savings and get the 17-40mmF4L - cheap, light and FF ready if you go that direction.


The 17-55 is most definitely not wider than the 16-35, and the 16-35, being an L lens, will probably hold its value better than the 17-55 just for its red ring. The mm numbers are the exact same, whether it be EF or EF-s mounts.

That said, I would recommend the 17-55 for a few reasons:
First, it is cheaper.
Second, it is very sharp for this zoom range, especially at the corners.
Third, it has IS, which is more useful at this zoom range on crop bodies; on crops, this lens is similar to the 24-105 on full-frame.

However, if you plan on going full-frame in the near future, I would recommend one of the EF mount lenses, rather than the EF-s lenses.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 30, 2012)

If you need a wide angle, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 stands alone in bang-for buck on APS-c. They've just announced a mkII version that should be out this summer.

If you've got a dedicated wide-angle for your crop camera then a general-use lens designed for FF cameras like the 24-105L IS is less of a limitation on the wide side (as it becomes a "normal-to-medium tele" lens on crop bodies).

You almost certainly want some kind of prime as well though. The 85mm f/1.8 USM is a really great option that won't break the bank. I use it for portraits, landscapes, concerts, low-light, etc etc etc. Good lenses that are light & fit in a coat pocket have a certain advantage over the big L zooms sometimes...

Personally I use a Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar as the "street lens" on my 40D. Small, light, inconspicuous, and it's a very rare example of an electronically coupled EF mount pancake lens (the other example being the Voigt 40mm). I usually just set it to hyperfocal at f/4 & forget about having to focus .


----------



## fancypants (Mar 18, 2012)

Thank you all very much forr the feedback, sorry for the delay in writing back, had issues with my computer then went on a boys trip ;D

Today I purchased the 7d with a 70 - 200 2.8L II with a grip, as I blew my budget on my holiday I spent some of my lens money so will have to save again for the shorter lens and tripod. I think I will go with the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS when I do buy the lens, when and if I do chose to upgrade the lens I can always sell it to my brother.

Now all the fun begins with learning how to use the camera to its full potential.

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## koolman (Mar 18, 2012)

Fancy:

Since you already have a zoom, I would suggest your next purchase be a prime.

Either rokina 14mm for wide landscape, or 35 f/2 / 50 1.4 as portrait lens. The primes encourage us to be creative, and give better IQ.


----------



## tuankid (Mar 19, 2012)

Agree with other on the 16-35mm recommendation. recently got mine and very pleased with it. however, it is not that great on a cropped body though.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

fancypants said:


> Thank you all very much forr the feedback, sorry for the delay in writing back, had issues with my computer then went on a boys trip ;D
> 
> Today I purchased the 7d with a 70 - 200 2.8L II with a grip, as I blew my budget on my holiday I spent some of my lens money so will have to save again for the shorter lens and tripod. I think I will go with the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS when I do buy the lens, when and if I do chose to upgrade the lens I can always sell it to my brother.
> 
> ...


----------



## @!ex (Mar 22, 2012)

Just picked up my mk3 today. I shoot ultra wide a lot, so I picked up a siggy 12-24 II. I used to shoot the 10-20 siggy on my old crop camera, then recently got the 8-16 (which is exactly 12-24 on a crop) and loved the extra width. every mm at these wide angles gives a 5-10% increase in angle of view, so a few mm makes a big difference. Anyway first impression with the 12-24 is that it is pretty soft on the edges, similar to the way 10-20 was, but I was hopping that it would be as sharp as the 8-16 (which is much sharper than the 10-20 if you can believe it). I'm may think of losing the 2mm and going for the 14mm L prime down the road, but for now pretty damned happy.

Here is a random sample shot from a little walk I did this afternoon. Handheld 7 shot bracket. It's amazing with the low noise at high ISO the high FPS and the AEB features on the MK3 I was able to handhold this 7 shot bracket and get 14 stops of exposure in this low light sunset shot. A little steam from the manhole in the lower left...


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

Since you mention landscape, motor-sport and portrait. I'd say get the 16-35. The range you are missing between the 16-35 and the 70-200 you can fill reasonably well with a 50mm prime. The other note-worthy kit option would be 14mm Wide (or 17mm TS-E) + 24-70 (or 24-105) and then your 70-200. Which is better depends on your personal style.

Someone, I forget who, a while back gave an awesome bit of advice and I would take it here whole-heartedly if I were you. Only buy 1 lens at a time. You'll get the fuller effect of a new purchase later down the road if you split up your order. I'd also seriously consider getting one of the EXIII extenders with the 70-200, not right away but maybe as your third/fourth lens purchase.


----------



## funkboy (Mar 23, 2012)

awesome bracketed shot


----------

