57 replies to this topic

[hired goon]

G'day,

Canon lenses seem to be on special at Amazon lately ... until Feb 1, when I assume the prices will rise above the current RRP. So I'm thinking about getting something nice, but dunno what to get.

I've got a Canon 7D, a 50/1.8 and a 1EF-S 15-85. The former is a cheapie but takes some nice shots, although I do have some focus issues. The latter is my walk-around lens, used mainly for landscapes although I do try using it for portraits on the long end.

I'm really looking for a very sharp lens that I will have no regrets buying. I've thought about the 24-70/2.8 L and the 7-200/2.8 L, coz I'd really like to have L glass. I've also thought about the 100/2.8 L macro, since I can use it for both macro and portraits.

I could get the 10-22 and the 85/1.8, which should cover my wide-angle and portrait needs, but unsure about the quality of either when compared to the L lenses.

I'm mainly into landscapes and portraits, so suggestions welcome, up to about $2500.

--Geoff

[nofixedaddress]

I use the 16-35 2.8L II and love it on my 7D! Great sharp shots. Also bought recently the 70-300 4.5-5.6L and that one is a cracker because it is compact. The rings being the opposite way around (zoom at the front) hasn't turned into the issue that I thought it would. My only grumble is obviously I have a hole in the 35-70 range (56-112 with 1.6 conversion) might solve that with a nice 50mm prime.

Hard to know what your standards are like. Both of these lenses were my first L series purchases so I don't know what the best of the best can do.

The more we use the L lenses - the more we enjoy what they are capable of. They make us concentrate on getting it right.

NFA

[warren2503]

hi hired goon

I also have the EF-S 15-85 mine takes really sharp pics . I researched quite a bit before I bought it and most opinion was it was equal to or better than the 24-70L
the lens I have are the same 50mm lens , the 15-85 and a sigma 150-500 for sport . if I got another lens it would be a 10-20mm for landscapes if on special I would also look at the 580 flash

[mondie]

Goon, you couldn't go wrong with the 85/1.8, it all depends on if you want the convenience of zooms or the speed and IQ of primes. An 85/1.2 is what l am really coveting next after recently buying a 35/1.4, if l could only have one lens that would be it. A 24-105L was may only lens until l rediscovered the joy of Primes last year, steer away from that one and go the 24-70 if you want a nice L zoom

Cheers,
mondie

[:) al]

a 7D owner here too,

depends how much want to spend hg. if mainly into landscapes and portraits. are the portraits more candid or set?. If candid a zoom like 24-105 f4L is really handy or say one like the 70-200L could go the f4 though the f2.8 might help on the longer zoom for hand held shots.

A large apperture ie 1.4 or so isnt so handy with portraits in my opinion as end up with too shallow a depth of field ie nose is in focus and eyes/ears arent hehe. if on a budget though the 50 1.4 I've found very good for the more set portraits. and on a 7D with crop factor is close to the right length. for landscape I bought the 17-40 f4L again because in my thinking the larger apperture f2.8 is probably not something would use for a landscape as want greater depth of field and likely be using f8 and above in any case. though if do use for low light shots hand held perhaps is where the lower f number f2.8 16-35 comes in. For me the bulk of time though my 24-105L is what ends up being in general use, both in and out of the house when out and about and I find the IS invaluable making a very versatile lens.

reason I have stayed away from the EF-S lenses designed only for crop cameras and I owned the very nice 17-55 f2.8 IS that sold off, is if into portraits and landscapes a full frame SLR is likely to bring some gains for this type of photography. So my lens purchases have kept this in mind that I am likely to end up with a full frame camera at some stage

macro I do have the 100 2.8L can recommend it highly for that type of photography

Edited by :) al, 26 January 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[JohnA]

HG

i have both the 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS

out of the 2 i use the 70-200 the most for outdoor portrait shots.
I like the fact i can stand well back and take some good snaps without been in the subjects face so to speak.
It has brilliant IQ and bokeh to die for
However, its very heavy and you will get tired if carying it around all day

the 24-70 has mixed results. Mine is very sharp, but i have heard of complaints that it can be soft. It is however the least used lens in my kit.

i also have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8, both brilliant, I use them for indoor shots. The 35mm on a crop would be the best option i would say for portraits.

I also have the tokina 11-16 2.8 which is brilliant for landscape.

the other lens in my kit is the sigma 150mm macro. Sharp as a tack, and again a great portrait lens, but too slow in focusing.

i think for what you are after the 16-35L if the budget stretches or the 17-40L
if you ever move onto a full frame, they will both be great landscape lenses also

[nofixedaddress]

When I bought the new 70-300L I tried both the 70-200L (4.0 (?)and the 2.8) IS versions. Found the 70-300 mid way for weight between the two, shorter when wound in than both and the focus much quicker and quieter than both especially in low light or dark objects. Where the two 200 lenses would hunt for focus, the 300 didn't. In use, the new lens is so quick at focusing that I have to keep checking the thing as re focussed (which it has). I haven't noticed any overshooting in the focus yet.

Again didn't compare quality of the images as I had to trust it being an L series it was up to scratch.

So many L lens options in that 70-200/300 range. Just comes down to cost and how you want to use them.

I note no one has warned about "L - itis"

NFA

[nofixedaddress]

HG

i think for what you are after the 16-35L if the budget stretches or the 17-40L
if you ever move onto a full frame, they will both be great landscape lenses also

I'd agree with that. Sometimes I would like that extra past the 35mm.

[:) al]

~

I note no one has warned about "L - itis"

NFA

hehe yes be warned. since buying my 24-105L some years ago. every lens since has been an 'L'

When I bought the new 70-300L I tried both the 70-200L (4.0 (?)and the 2.8) IS versions. Found the 70-300 mid way for weight between the two, shorter when wound in than both and the focus much quicker and quieter than both especially in low light or dark objects. Where the two 200 lenses would hunt for focus, the 300 didn't. In use, the new lens is so quick at focusing that I have to keep checking the thing as re focussed (which it has). I haven't noticed any overshooting in the focus yet.

Again didn't compare quality of the images as I had to trust it being an L series it was up to scratch.

So many L lens options in that 70-200/300 range. Just comes down to cost and how you want to use them.

~

NFA

true. the 70-300L Is certainly on my want list ! as a newer lens got a lot going for it. and I am missing some extension past 105mm in the lenses have

[Peter the Greek]

IMO the only lens you want for a crop are the 17-55 and the 70-200.......then if you want a maco or 10-22 you can add later. I like the 50mm primes on crops as well - dont really like the 85 on it - bigger than the body for one thing

Unless you're planing on a FF sensor (5Dii et al) at some point, I'd steer clear of the 24-70, 16-35 etc and buy lens suited to your body - for wide angle or macro use

But the 70-200 2.8is is essential for anyone, its an awesome bit of kit

Edit - fast primes take skill to use wide open, stick with the high end zooms unless you're a pro. Buy a nifty fifty to practice with before dropping a couple of grand on the big ones

Edited by Elill, 27 January 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[:) al]

I handled a 70-200 2.8is last year while one of the guys brought along at a wedding reception I attended, and was taking some outdoor and indoor shots. the things a beast ! . I cant see any one carrying one around much ! an awesome bit of kit none the less as you say. it was fantastic in evening indoor shots with its IS and f2.8 working so well for candid portraits of bride & groom. but gee a monster and expensive !

re the 17-55, on a crop its more like a general use lens but in that role falls bit short in zoom for length. and to be honest when I had it with my 24-105L the 17-55 didnt end up getting much use. Sold it off. since then picked up a 17-40L and it is a better lens I think which can pick up for less ! but yeah there are plenty people happy with a 17-55. and when selling mine sold no probs

my no1 lens with the 7D though is still the 24-105L. really only comes off the camera now and then to take a shot or two with one of the other lenses.

agree with your re the skill to use wide open primes and especially given the quality of hi end zooms these days

Edited by :) al, 27 January 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[hired goon]

G'day,

Thanks for all the replies.

I'm currently leaning towards the Canon 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) ... would love to get the IS version but it is about $1000 more expensive. I really like the f2.8 over the f4.0 as I find I'm in a lot of low light situations. Then I will try the 70-200 @ 85/2.8 to see if the 85/1.8 prime is justified.

I'm also leaning towards the Canon EF-S 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16 ... reading lots of reviews at the moment. Both have pluses and minuses, but I think something wider than the 15-85 is required. Not sure if I'd keep the 15-85 if I got one of these, maybe get a 24-70/2.8 L to replace it, so that I would have 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200.

--Geoff

[JohnA]

I handled a 70-200 2.8is last year while one of the guys brought along at a wedding reception I attended, and was taking some outdoor and indoor shots. the things a beast ! . I cant see any one carrying one around much ! an awesome bit of kit none the less as you say. it was fantastic in evening indoor shots with its IS and f2.8 working so well for candid portraits of bride & groom. but gee a monster and expensive !

you need to work out more mate
it is heavy, but its not that bad. I have carried it around all day with no issues.

HG, like you i wasn't sure if i wanted to spend the extra on the IS, but on the 70-200 i am glad i did.

[Rockford]

I'd never get a zoom lens without IS. Unless it going to spend all it's time on a tripod.

If the 70-200 is too much maybe look at the 100-400.
http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
http://www.dwidigita...?idProduct=1474

or the smaller 70-300L
http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx
http://www.dwidigita...?idProduct=3080

[:) al]

Hehe John didn't realise you you had a f2.8 is 70-200 just saying want to get handle on one for anyone considering as may not be for everyone. but no question an awesome lens ! Would love one myself but know something I know would loathe carrying around ! Hehe

I agree with post above IS is a must I wouldn't get a zoom these days without it as well. A boon if taking impromptu hand held shots. Especially in low light situations. But if mostly on tripods or in bright outdoors probably not much use.

[Peter the Greek]

70-200 IS with an R-stap is fine.

I have carried one for an entire day, no fatigue....only time I have found it real bad is free form in a studio - after an hour or two of non stop shooting it gets a little tiring

[hired goon]

G'day,

Strewth! You buggers really want to send me to the poor house, if ya reckon that I need to get the IS version of the 70-200/2.8 L, which is double the price of the non-IS version. Gunna have to think about that some more ...

--Geoff

[Willco]

Frankly I have tried and compared both the 2.8L and the 4L

The 4L was sharper/half the price and weight.

Willco

[Rockford]

G'day,

Strewth! You buggers really want to send me to the poor house, if ya reckon that I need to get the IS version of the 70-200/2.8 L, which is double the price of the non-IS version. Gunna have to think about that some more ...

--Geoff

On this page halfway down, http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx is a green pine tree or something close-up Hover your mouse over the IS on, IS off to see the difference

[hired goon]

G'day,

Maybe the 70-200 f4 IS L could be the go ... although I really wanted a f2.8 lens. However I have read reports that the f4 may actually have better IQ than the f2.8s (although less bokeh and less useful in low-light) ... more research required.

--Geoff

[protecon]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and it's awesome.
If you're doing landscapes it's a definite inclusion in the bag - super wide for getting foreground and fast enough for decent HDR.

IS is a load of ****.

[hired goon]

G'day,

I went to the camera emporium today and had a play with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens ... it's a bit of a beast as mentioned but not overly so IMHO. The 70-200 f/4 L looked a bit wee beside it.

In the store I took some test shots with IS on and off ... having the IS on made a big difference. Not sure if I want a non-IS 70-200 lens now.

The only question is f2.8 or f4 ...

--Geoff

[Rockford]

If you are mainly into portraits and landscapes, where it's well lit go the F4, but you will rue not having 2.8 when you need it. Ad hoc indoor shots, early morning scenes. But it does leave you with about $1K to spend on another lens. Like a 100mm 2.8L Macro :-)
http://www.the-digit...ens-Review.aspx

[Leon]

When comparing the 70-200 f2.8 IS lenses, check which one as there is a MKII out now, it is a fair bit better than the old one (one would expect that of course!)

[hired goon]

G'day,

When comparing the 70-200 f2.8 IS lenses, check which one as there is a MKII out now, it is a fair bit better than the old one (one would expect that of course!)

The lens I used was the MkII.

I think I might up the budget and get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, and either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16. The primes & macros will have to wait for another day.

--Geoff

[Leon]

Hi Geoff,

I have said lens and love it. Also have the Canon 10-22 but it was before the 11-16 came out, it is faster at 2.8. But rarely have I missed the extra speed at wide angle, but definitely like it with the 70-200. I also have the 100mm 2.8L macro, but mainly use it for macros. Since it is the same speed as the 70-200, you can use the later for portraits, though as mentioned it is a lot heavier! I love IS, for landscapes on a tripod you have to turn it off with most lenses. But on it lets you get much sharper images than you would have otherwise. Double plus good for low light!

[JohnA]

hg, good choices mate
i love both those lenses. The 11-16 has had a great workout, and because i use it a fair bit for indoor shots, the constant 2.8 is a blessing.

If you are going to only use it outdoors, then maybe look at the tokina 12-24. I had this one also and it was great, moved onto the 11-16 purely for low light use

[JohnA]

HG, here are some pics taken with the 70-200 2.8 IS
the 2 of the cats were a very overcast day and behind thick glass at the werribee zoo

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40629[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]40630[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]40631[/ATTACH]

[hired goon]

G'day,

Nice shots there, JohnA. Although I'm wondering how differently the 70-200 would perform on my 7D vs your 5D. I can see camera upgraditis may follow lens upgraditis ...

--Geoff

[nofixedaddress]

FYI this is how the 70-300L works on a 7D.



And



Allow for the usual compression artefacts.

Don't think you will be looking too soon for an upgrade of the body. Unless you want those super wide angles. The 7D can do a lot and still produce some stunning imagery. Don't be too hard on it.

If you are interested HG I might be able put one of the RAW images into a dropbox so you can have a look at the absolute quality - untouched.

NFA

Edited by nofixedaddress, 31 January 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[JohnA]

G'day,

Nice shots there, JohnA. Although I'm wondering how differently the 70-200 would perform on my 7D vs your 5D. I can see camera upgraditis may follow lens upgraditis ...

--Geoff

no 5D here mate, that was with a 40D, so the 7D should perform even better

[hired goon]

G'day,

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I've ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens ... quite a big bugger and quite a bigger price tag than I originally budgeted but what the hell ... gotta treat yerself to a great lens once in a while.

I might start looking at the 100L macro next, and maybe one of those UWA lens like the Tokina 11-16 (although with photostitching so good these days maybe I can get away with my current lens and panoramas).

--Geoff

[JohnA]

congrats HG
you wont be disappointed

[hired goon]

G'day,

So now I move onto an ultra-wide angle lens ... there's been quite a few wraps here for the Tokina 11-16, but the Canon 10-22 has the extra 1mm and (apparently) handles flare better. I'd be using a UWA for outdoor landscapes mostly so both issues are more important to me than low-light handling of the Tokina. So I'm leaning towards the Canon 10-22 right now.

But one thing I would like to know: is it possible to fit a circular polarizer to a UWA lens without causing vignetting? I know there are slim CPs but are they slim enough for a 10mm lens?

--Geoff

[JohnA]

Geoff a review i read on the 10-22 mentioned that a standard thickness cp caused slight issues at 10mm but at 11 it was not a problem. They recommended a slim cp, but no actual trials were done to confirm

[hired goon]

G'day,

Geoff a review i read on the 10-22 mentioned that a standard thickness cp caused slight issues at 10mm but at 11 it was not a problem. They recommended a slim cp, but no actual trials were done to confirm

Thanks ... I use a CP mainly for sky shots and I'm now wondering if the polarizing effect would be applied consistently at such wide angles ... I'm guessing that, even with the sun directly behind, there may be some uneven darkening. And if the sun is off axis then one side of the sky would be dark and the other side light.

--Geoff

[Leon]

Polarizers have to be used very carefully on wide angle lenses, not only due to vignetting but due to the fact that you'll get uneven areas across the sky.

[nofixedaddress]

How would those issues with a standard CP translate to a 7D using the crop sensor? I don't know about these things but I'm guessing since the central portion of the lens is being used the issues reported by John with the CP at 10mm on a FF camera won't occur on the 7D?

BTW good choice there HP the 70-2002.8L IS II is a bloody good lens.

NFA

[Peter the Greek]

I LOVE my 70-200 2.8IS (MKI). I use it all the time - weekly in fact. Superb lens with good resale value should ever you need to get rid of it.

Where'd you get it?

[JohnA]

How would those issues with a standard CP translate to a 7D using the crop sensor? I don't know about these things but I'm guessing since the central portion of the lens is being used the issues reported by John with the CP at 10mm on a FF camera won't occur on the 7D?

BTW good choice there HP the 70-2002.8L IS II is a bloody good lens.

NFA

the 10-22 lens is not a lens for a full frame sensor.
It is made for crop frames so the testing was done on a crop frame camera.

[nofixedaddress]

the 10-22 lens is not a lens for a full frame sensor.
It is made for crop frames so the testing was done on a crop frame camera.

Ah, OK, thanks John. Backs sense now to me.

NFA

[JohnA]

Ah, OK, thanks John. Backs sense now to me.

NFA

no probs, i do believe there is a hack to make it work on a full frame, but damn would hate to see the results of it

[soundfan]

G'day,

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I've ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens ... quite a big bugger and quite a bigger price tag than I originally budgeted but what the hell ... gotta treat yerself to a great lens once in a while.

I might start looking at the 100L macro next, and maybe one of those UWA lens like the Tokina 11-16 (although with photostitching so good these days maybe I can get away with my current lens and panoramas).

--Geoff

Very nice Geoff.
As for the 100mm Macro, the non IS Canon version is a ripper of a lense too, without the price tag of the L series version.

Having said that, I recently sold our Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, and purchased a Tokina AT-X 90 f2.5. Regarded as one of the best lenses ever made.

Chris

Edited by soundfan, 31 January 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[nofixedaddress]

no probs, i do believe there is a hack to make it work on a full frame, but damn would hate to see the results of it

Eeew that would not be nice.

[hired goon]

G'day,

So now I move onto an ultra-wide angle lens ... there's been quite a few wraps here for the Tokina 11-16, but the Canon 10-22 has the extra 1mm and (apparently) handles flare better. I'd be using a UWA for outdoor landscapes mostly so both issues are more important to me than low-light handling of the Tokina. So I'm leaning towards the Canon 10-22 right now.

I bought a second-hand Canon 10-22 lens today. I was undecided between the 10-22 and the 11-16 but when I saw the 10-22 for a great price I had to pounce. It will come in handy for the vast Utah landscapes and temples.

Now to snag a good second-hand 100 2.8L macro ...

--Geoff