# Help Choosing new lens



## visionphotos (Apr 6, 2011)

Hello All ,

i need to buy a lens and i dont know which one.

im looking for something in the range between 16 and 50 it can be a bit less or a bit more doesnt matter.

Lenses i have are:

11-16 2.8 Tokina
50mm 1.4 Sigma
100mm macro USM IS L 2.8
100-400mm Canon L

Body:

7D Canon
(future upgrade to full frame)

i dont mind third parties as long as they are proven to be better than the canon one. as well i dont like lenses that change the aperture unless is really necessary like in the 100-400 because it will be impossible constructing this lens at that price with constant low aperture.

Thanks.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 6, 2011)

*Re: Help Choosing ne lens*

What type of budget are you on?

The 24L, 35L would be nice if you want spankin' primes, or you can go for the oft-recommended EF-S 17-55mm. That zoom would fill the gap very nicely, and you could always sell when you go FF.

Otherwise for a FF lens, there is the 16-35mm f/2.8 L or the 17-40mm f/4 L


----------



## KBX500 (Apr 6, 2011)

*Re: Help Choosing ne lens*



visionphotos said:


> Hello All ,
> 
> i need to buy a lens and i dont know which one.
> 
> ...



You didn't say what your budget is, what you're shooting primarily, how important IQ is to you, if you need Image Stabilization, primes or a zoom, but the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is generally the best option for an APS-C body like the 7D. It is a little pricy but it's worth it, especially if you can find a nice used one. That's what I did and it has proven to be an excellent lens and a great value. I can sell it for what I paid for it, $700, at anytime.

The EF-S 15-85 F/3.5-5.6 is the next obvious choice. Compared to the 17-55 you're gaining 30mm of zoom on the long end, but will have a variable aperture to deal with, which was a deal breaker for me. I, also, much prefer a fast, constant aperature.

The EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and the EF 24-105 F/4 L IS are two great choices, also, especially if the upgrade to a full-frame is imminent. The problem is, on an APS-C body you may miss the 17-24 range that you're losing versus the EF-S lenses, considering that you have the Tokina 11-16, which is a great lens, but has a very narrow zoom range. However, you could sell or trade off the Tokina for the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, or maybe the Tamron 10-24. Then the 24-70 or 24-105 won't leave a gap. Then again, zooming with your feet may suffice.

The EF 16-35 f/2.8 L and the EF 17-40 f/4 L are excellent lens, too, but for me they are just bit too short in their range and neither has IS, which is something I need for standard and telephoto zooms 

The Tamron 17-50 non-IS is also a good choice for the APS-C bodies and is a bit more affordable than the EF-S 17-55. 

The EF-S 18-55 isn't a bad lens by any means either. It's not quite in the same category as the others, but it is very usable.

Keep in mind that all of the Canon lenses mentioned, with the possible exception of the 18-55, all hold their value extremely well. If you can locate nice used copies from someone you trust you can break even, if you buy right.

Gather other opinions here, then compare your choices at www.the-digital-picture.com

Keith


----------



## visionphotos (Apr 7, 2011)

*Re: Help Choosing ne lens*

sorry i didn't thought to put more details.

this lens will primary be used as a walk around and parties , social events.

the IQ is very important to me specially sharpness and contrast.

one thing i don't like is extendable bodies i like bodies that when you zoom in they stay the same size.

I wouldn't mind a prime lens but im not sure whether go 24 or 30mm.

the only reason i cant use my 50mm is becasue specially in parties i dont have enough room to back up thats why i was thinking 30 or 24mm.

budget is about 1500.


----------



## K3nt (Apr 7, 2011)

Nice budget... I'd say the 17-55mm f/2.8 would do you nicely. The 30mm tends to be a bit difficult as you still have the 7Ds 1.6x crop factor to deal with (same as me).
Just my 2 (insert currency)


----------



## tomscott (Apr 7, 2011)

I like you was in the same pickle, thinking of going full frame but wasnt sure when. The 24-70 F2.8 is getting long in the tooth with no IS, it is expensive although a fantastic lens, the 24-105 F4 IS would be a great lens but i feel F4 isnt fast enough and having the 2.8 really means the lens is available for use in nearly all situations. What really put me off is a standard lens should be wide and a medium telephoto, these two EF lenses are pretty much medium telephoto, with the range starting at 38mm on a crop camera. I dont like the idea of changing lenses every time I need wider than 40mm!! I use the wider spectrum more than the longer spectrum so the EF lenses were not for me.

I have always wanted the 17-55mm F2.8 IS, it has been rated so highly just didnt get round to taking the plunge. I had the 17-85mm while the optics wernt the best and the variable aperture made it a pain in lower light it was a good lens and served its purpose. I Finally decided to take the plunge and got a great 3 month old second hand 17-55mm which i paid Â£550!!! I saw it and thought this is too good to be true so snapped it up immediately!!! (London Camera Exchange - so you know its good) Sold the 17-85mm and the optical quality of the 17-55 is incredible! I have read that the 17-55mm is basically an L series lens without the weather sealing, and i cant agree more and wont look back. It is so sharp at F4 (bit softer a 2.8 but that is to be expected im not a pixel picker) and the boeker is very pleasing, I love the 2.8 makes this lens such a good all rounder.

Like previous posts have said I definitely wont loose money on this one! Since then I haven't seen one for less than Â£650 so i was very lucky. Although it didn't have a hood because for some reason Canon don't provide a hood with any of their EF-s lenses, although they are as expensive as the L's. But it was boxed and looked like it had shot less than 500 frames. The guy at the shop said the previous owner had gone crop but decided very quickly he wanted full frame so sold all his EF-s kit ergo bargain for me!

If i have one problem with this lens... it would be the length, being used to having 85mm to play with going back to 55 feels a little too small, but i just need to get used to it, also slightly disappointed in the minimum focusing distance. Unlike most standard zooms they usually have a macro distance of 0.25-0.35 but this isnt rated with any macro ability, there have been times where being closer would be nicer especially seen as tho the zoom is quite short. But i wanted to get the new 100mm macro IS so im not too worried. (maybe i ask too much from the glass, they have made a great job with it as it is). 

The small problem i now face is filling the gap, i have the 70-200 F2.8 L and that works out at 112-320mm and there isnt really a lens to fill the 55-110 gap. All the lenses in between either dont fit the bill, are reduced quality cheaper mid range zooms with variable apertures...

In my opinion there isnt a perfect balance but its just something I have to deal with.

For me the perfect lens would be either a 17-70mm F2.8 IS EF-s or a 17-105 F2.8 IS EF-s with minimum distances of 0.25 it wont happen but i would snap at a lens like that. 

Tom Scott


----------



## visionphotos (Apr 7, 2011)

Thanks for the lengthy response . I'm in the same nd I have been recommend that lens but not sure because I hate lenses that extend.

This weekend I'm trying my friend 17-40 and see if I like the range.

My Oder concern is that when I upgrade or when I rent a full frame camera like I some times do a 5DII.

For your case I can recommend you get a couple of primes like a 100 macro and a 50 1.4. Bu there is another you can get a tokina 50-135 2.8.


----------



## 87vr6 (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm suprised no one has recommended the 28mm 1.8... You stated your 50 is too long for your parties, you obviously need a fast aperture. People think they need to have every MM covered with all their lenses. Judging by what you already have and you're requirements, I'd definitely recommend the 28 1.8. Do not get the 2.8.


----------



## SteveCSmith (Apr 8, 2011)

I was looking at the 24-70 last summer to replace my 18-55, but on my crop sensor wanted the wider angle (and couldn't justify 2 lenses nor did I want to switch all the time). I ended up getting the Sigma 17-70. The downside is its F2.8-4 (and, of course, goes to f4 pretty quickly), but having stabilization was the closest match to my needs (and, for about $500US fit the budget nicely, too). I wouldn't say its perfect for pixel peeping, but it is very good and the color is incredible. I love it. The 18-55 was classified dung shortly after receiving this lens.

Downside is its a crop lens. The only negative I'd say is that the included hood shows up in the pictures when in the 17-19mm range (inexplicably stupid). Until Canon can come up with something with comparable specs, its the ticket in my book. Sigma really put together a winning combo here - have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 8, 2011)

^^^
Twice the price, but there is the 17-55 EF-S (not sure if you had consider that)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

SteveCSmith said:


> I was looking at the 24-70 last summer to replace my 18-55, but on my crop sensor wanted the wider angle...Until Canon can come up with something with comparable specs, its the ticket in my book. Sigma really put together a winning combo here - have your cake and eat it, too.



I'd say the 17-55mm is pretty close, although more expensive. Remember that when you compare focal lengths, you need to compare ratio, not the absolute numbers (i.e. the 10mm difference from 10-20mm is a whole lot more than the 10mm difference between 190-200mm). The difference between 17mm and 24mm is major (40%), while the difference between 55 and 70mm is much less, and to me losing 15mm on the long end is more than worth keeping f/2.8 all the way out.


----------

