Canon 7D Lens suggestion

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by IamJoe

Dave, Thank you for you honest opinion.
I was at my local electronics store yesterday and I spent some time with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and I absolutley loved it. They did not have a 24-70mm f/2.8L for me to look at. Most guys around here have both of these lenses, but if you had to choose one, which one would that be and why?

Joe

Joe, I looked at both lenses. I found it hard to find a really sharp copy of the 24-70, whereas every 24-105mm I played with was sharp. I also wanted an everyday lens that didn't weigh a ton (the 24-70mm is nearly 50% heavier!). For me, the choice was easy.

If you need the 2.8 aperture, go for the 24-70mm, otherwise the 24-105mm might be the better overall choice.

[M_Six]

I have the 24-105 and the IS is very nice to have. This was shot just now at 80mm, F4, 1/13th sec handheld.

[Weebl]

Joe, the two lenses as you know are at different price points and both are excellent lenses. The 24-70 with the 2.8 will give you a nice and short DOF for your portraits (which take time to compose and shoot) but the IS on the 24-105 helps for those quick snaps. You may also throw in the EF-S 17-55 F2.8IS which is a very high quality lens also. The two L lenses you have to multiply for the crop of 1.6 on the 7D but the EF-S lenses you do not.
You have a very smart wife, she steered you away from the dark side ;-)

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

If you can pony up for the 24-70, go for it. 2.8 produces some beautiful bokeh. Just beware it is one heavy son of a b*tch (nicknamed the brick). However that being said if this is your only lens and you want a touch more tele the 24-105 is also VERY nice. you lose 1 full stop of speed on the aperture end but that might not be the end of the world for you... especially for the price difference. I love my 24-70mm 2.8 and it's my go to, most used lens but I think I'd be 98% just as happy with the 24-105mm, I'm just a whore for extreme bokeh from the f/2.8.

100% agree, but depending on your comfort level with lenses without image stabilizer, it also becomes a point for the 24-105.

to me, the F4 isn't wide enough, but the image stabilizer makes me always want that lens. I'm very happy with my 24-70, just not in super super low light, or trying to make water move. But for the low light, at least i can crank the ISO up to compensate.

the 24-105 is also tack sharp. I've heard some mixed reviews on the sharpness of the 24-70. They've been hit and miss for people, but funny enough, i haven't met or talked to anyone personally who has had one of these "bad" ones.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

the 24-105 is also tack sharp. I've heard some mixed reviews on the sharpness of the 24-70. They've been hit and miss for people, but funny enough, i haven't met or talked to anyone personally who has had one of these "bad" ones.

That's because they've been returning 'em... duh

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

...
the 24-105 is also tack sharp. I've heard some mixed reviews on the sharpness of the 24-70. They've been hit and miss for people, but funny enough, i haven't met or talked to anyone personally who has had one of these "bad" ones.

My 24-105mm was noticeably softer than my 70-200mm UNTIL I started processing all my images with DxO Optics Pro. DxO corrects for CA, geometric distortion, vignetting, etc., etc. at each body at each focal length and each aperture. I literally had called Canon and had permission to send the 24-105mm in for calibration and then tried DxO. That was more than two-years ago and I'm still pleased with my "corrected" 24-105mm.

I understand that Lightroom and ACR do similar correction.

Most of the reviews compare lenses on a uncorrected basis. Unfortunately, that's not how we use lenses these days. Of course, IQ might be better in LR than DxO, etc., so the reviewers just avoid that issue by not even mentioning it. However, us end users need to consider it before we send a lens back.

Here's one with the 24-105mm wide open at f/4, ISO 100, +1EV resulting in 1/800th second. I intend for the flags to lean in so I didn't correct that, but DxO did correct some relatively heavy CA and curves in the pools at the edges:


Rockefeller Center by dcstep, on Flickr

[asdflkijd]

17-40L is the thing I miss most about my cannon.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Weebl

You may also throw in the EF-S 17-55 F2.8IS which is a very high quality lens also. The two L lenses you have to multiply for the crop of 1.6 on the 7D but the EF-S lenses you do not.

holy crap I totally forgot about that. Good thing you mentioned it, I'm helping a buddy put together a body/lens combo on an XSi. That might be a bit wide for him now.

[The1]

the 17-55mm F2.8 might be the first one i go for, it's probably one of the best lenses for the money out there. It's as fast a zoom as you can get on an EF-S mount lens.

and since you are used to that 50mm mark, it will be decent for you. And it will cover a wider range then the bottom end of your kit lens.

over all, if you can find a zoom lens that has a constant F stop, it will be your best friend because it will be better for controlling exposures.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Weebl

The two L lenses you have to multiply for the crop of 1.6 on the 7D but the EF-S lenses you do not.

I'm not sure about this. From what I've read, the magnification factor is the same. In other words, the size of an object image on the sensor is the same using EF-S lenses as it is with the EF lens given identical focal lengths. The FOV is the same as far as the sensor is concerned. It's just that the EF-S lenses project a circle that encompasses a narrower (but not smaller) FOV. If you take a shot of a Coke bottle with an EF lens on a 7D and a shot with an EF-S lens on the same body, as long as the focal length is consistent, the image size of the bottle on the sensor is identical. So a 100% crop of 640x480 around the dead center of the image will be identical for both lenses. The EF-S lens just allows Canon to make a shorter (and hence cheaper) lens due the shorter back focus made possible by a smaller mirror. The shorter lens produces a narrower image circle.

From The-Digital-Picture:

I say "Canon EF Lens" because Canon EF-S Lenses are made specifically for the 1.6x FOVCF DSLR bodies (but still require the same FOVCF to be applied as the standard Canon EF Lenses to get the equivalent focal length comparison).

It's simple physics. A 70mm focal length will produce an image of an object on a sensor that is x-mm by y-mm regardless of the sensor or the lens type. So your FOV on a 1.6 crop sensor is the same at 70mm whether it's from an EF lens or an EF-S lens.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by The1

the 17-55mm F2.8 might be the first one i go for, it's probably one of the best lenses for the money out there. It's as fast a zoom as you can get on an EF-S mount lens.

and since you are used to that 50mm mark, it will be decent for you. And it will cover a wider range then the bottom end of your kit lens.

over all, if you can find a zoom lens that has a constant F stop, it will be your best friend because it will be better for controlling exposures.

I agree with this. If you're happiest in the 50mm neighborhood, this would be your lens. I have this range covered already and I'm still tempted to buy this lens.

[remmib]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I'm not sure about this. From what I've read, the magnification factor is the same. In other words, the size of an object image on the sensor is the same using EF-S lenses as it is with the EF lens given identical focal lengths. The FOV is the same as far as the sensor is concerned. It's just that the EF-S lenses project a circle that encompasses a narrower (but not smaller) FOV. If you take a shot of a Coke bottle with an EF lens on a 7D and a shot with an EF-S lens on the same body, as long as the focal length is consistent, the image size of the bottle on the sensor is identical. So a 100% crop of 640x480 around the dead center of the image will be identical for both lenses. The EF-S lens just allows Canon to make a shorter (and hence cheaper) lens due the shorter back focus made possible by a smaller mirror. The shorter lens produces a narrower image circle.

From The-Digital-Picture:


It's simple physics. A 70mm focal length will produce an image of an object on a sensor that is x-mm by y-mm regardless of the sensor or the lens type. So your FOV on a 1.6 crop sensor is the same at 70mm whether it's from an EF lens or an EF-S lens.

Correct, the 17-55 will act like a 27-88mm on a FF.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by remmib

Correct, the 17-55 will act like a 27-88mm on a FF.

It won't cover the sensor on a FF body. Even if it did, it'd still be 17-55mm.

Lens FL is stated in reference to 35mm dimensions. Hence, FF is pretty much a 1-to-1 vs. 35mm film. With a 1D the field of view is constrained and you multiply by 1.3 to get the equivalent field of view. It's still a 17-55mm lens, with the same reach (multiplication) of a 17-55mm, but with the field of view narrowed (cropped). For Rebels and the 7D the factor is 1.6, but the reach is still unchanged, just the field of view is reduced.

If I take my FF 5D MkII and take a picture at 24mm and take the same scene at 24mm with my 7D, if I crop the 5D2 image (maintaining the aspect ratio) around 40% the subject will be the same size in both the uncropped 7D image and the 5D2 cropped image. All that's changing is the field of view, not reach or focal length.

P&S makers have further confused the issue by making up terms such as "digital zoom", which is merely in-camera cropping. With a tiny sensor the IQ quickly goes to hell in a hand basket.

Dave

[The1]

basically, you're just getting a "theoretical" number, where the actual number really doesn't change at all.

Interestingly however, with the megapixel size of these crop bodies out there, they have more pixels in their crop then the 21 megapixel 5DmkII.

if you were to turn the crop sensor cameras into full frame, they would be pushing about 25mp.

[UdubBadger]

Gonna trade my back up 40D+grip for a T2i.

yay or ney?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

basically, you're just getting a "theoretical" number, where the actual number really doesn't change at all.

Interestingly however, with the megapixel size of these crop bodies out there, they have more pixels in their crop then the 21 megapixel 5DmkII.

if you were to turn the crop sensor cameras into full frame, they would be pushing about 25mp.

Well, yeah, BUT they're noisier. My 7D gives superior detail and my 5D2 gives superior noise performance. The 5D2's noise behaves, even when pushed up at ISO 6400, but with the 7D I need to worry about mosaic-like distortion an noise when I push up at ISO 1600 and above.

IQ includes several things, such as detail resolution and noise production. Some people only focus on noise, which I think is a mistake.

Anyway, I suspect that the 5DIII will meet or exceed 25-mp. That'll put some of the file sizes up over 30MB. I'm already operating in 64-bits, but may need to invest in more RAM soon, going from 6GB to 10GB to speed up RAW conversion and processing. Onward and upward...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

Gonna trade my back up 40D+grip for a T2i.

yay or ney?

Yay.

The T2i has the same sensor as my 7D, which is wonderful in rendition of detail. Sounds like a great trade to me.

Dave

[vachss]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yay.

The T2i has the same sensor as my 7D, which is wonderful in rendition of detail. Sounds like a great trade to me.

Dave

I had a T2i for almost a year before I upgraded to a 7D (hooray for the CLP).
The T2i is indeed a nice little camera and produced noticeably better results than the XSi I had previously (which, in turn, already had better resolution than the 40D). ...and the HD video was nice too. I dragged the T2i around in the Australian outback for a month and in the Central American jungle for a couple of weeks and it came up smiling - the little Rebels are plenty rugged (even if they are not of the main battle tank quality of the 1 series).

That said, the big improvement going from the T2i to the 7D was in responsiveness (instantaneous shutter response, quicker AF, much faster burst rate). I'm not sure how these parameters fare on the 40D, but some of them might be worse on the T2i. Worth checking before making the switch if this will be your only/primary camera body.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

...

That said, the big improvement going from the T2i to the 7D was in responsiveness (instantaneous shutter response, quicker AF, much faster burst rate). I'm not sure how these parameters fare on the 40D, but some of them might be worse on the T2i. Worth checking before making the switch if this will be your only/primary camera body.

I don't think anyone will trade him even for a 7D; however, if it's a store that would take the 40D plus some boot, then I'd go for the 7D. It's very close to a "pro" body without the added bulk and crazy cost.

Love my 7D.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I don't think anyone will trade him even for a 7D; however, if it's a store that would take the 40D plus some boot, then I'd go for the 7D. It's very close to a "pro" body without the added bulk and crazy cost.

Love my 7D.

Dave

I agree, 7D or nothing. I think it compliments the 5DII well. Only thing better is selling all cameras and buying a 1D

Each camera covers the others weaknesses. Controls are similar, making the switch from one to the other easier then it would be with a T2i.

That being said, I respect the T2i a lot, but if you're going rebel, why not get all the bells and whistles of a T3i?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by The1

... but if you're going rebel, why not get all the bells and whistles of a T3i?

Was wondering the same thing, but I thought maybe he had a one-time deal to trade straight up for a T2i.

[FrankiE90]

u can also rent a few lens if ur still un-sure which one to get.
borrowlens.com