Reading mode: Light Dark

Japan trip: 24-105mm f/4 and what L prime for 7D?

Go to last post
kara11 said:
Well I already own the 7D so buying a full frame isn't an option for me. What's wrong with wanting only L lenses as a 7D owner?
Click to expand...
... because, as has already been pointed out to you, there are only 2 L lenses that might compliment what you already have for the purpose you intend (17 TSE and 14L) - and they aren't really very practical for travel.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to ask here for advice and then ignore or belittle it when it is given - bye :-(
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
 
I wouldn't feel comfortable taking my 24-105 to Tokyo for my 5D, let alone a 7D. I often get frustrated with 24mm given that I'm used to having 17mm at my disposal.

I'd probably take 2 lenses with me - 17-40 and 70-200. I had a 28-105 for my 10D and never used it. It just wasn't wide enough.

If I were you I'd look at a 10-22 as a must-have for travel.
 
When you buy L glass for a crop sensor body you are buying heavy, expensive lenses designed for a different application.

What you're doing is collecting pretty things. What you're not doing is spending your money wisely.

Macros and superteles are the exception. It does make sense to put a 300/2.8 or 100/2.8 macro on a crop body, especially one with a good focusing system.

If you want to start lining up red rings on your self, at least buy a used 5D or 1D or 1Ds first. Used 5D = $1k, Used 1D2n = $1k. Used 1Ds2 = $2.5k. Now you'll be using the lens for its intended purpose.
kara11 said:
joebloe said:
So, buy a full frame body for them, or at least a 1D.

Otherwise you're spending 2x as much money as you need to.

kara11 wrote:

So far I'm in love with the build and image quality of the L lenses so I'm only really looking at those right now.

--
http://twitter.com/jpaphoto
Click to expand...
Well I already own the 7D so buying a full frame isn't an option for me. What's wrong with wanting only L lenses as a 7D owner?
Click to expand...
--
http://twitter.com/jpaphoto
 
PhillipA said:
kara11 said:
Well I already own the 7D so buying a full frame isn't an option for me. What's wrong with wanting only L lenses as a 7D owner?
Click to expand...
It doesn't make a lot of sense to ask here for advice and then ignore or belittle it when it is given - bye :-(
Click to expand...
I don't see her as ignoring anyone or belittling anyone. She is only asking the question. Seems to me more like someone else here needs a hug.

Kara I would add the 10-22 to the 24-105 and then a 28/1.8 and either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 for that $1000-2000 you are looking at. It gives you a lt more bang for the buck. If you insist on an L prime, I would pick the 35L.
 
I'm not comfortable with the 10-22 EFs. I had a 10-22 EFs on which the auto focus died. I had it fixed and then sold it. I have the 17-55 f2.8 IS which hasn't let me down. If I want a wider view than 17mm I stitch photos together in Photoshop.

I also have a 24-105 L IS for my 50D's. It's a real joy to photograph with. If it looks pretty, well so what. Looks are in the eye of the beholder anyway.

Before the EFs mount wide angles came out, a few photographers used the 15mm f2.8 full frame fisheye. PTL lens could make the 15mm images into nice rectilinear ones. Now Canon has introduced an 8- 15mm L full frame fisheye. It has a switch for APS C and H formats. Obviously it will be a full frame fisheye effect. There is software out there that could modify this. No pricing yet, but it's an interesting lens for sure.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should go out and buy this lens in lieu of a 10-22 EF. All I'm saying is that it's very interesting.
 
there still are few options for wide on a crop frame camera - i prefer the Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22 for it's wider aperture, build quality, and slightly better IQ, but the 10-22 is nice and light with a larger zoom range - you can toss a coin. no matter what you use as a main walk-around, you need one of these for Tokyo.

my experience over many years (but not current) is that camera prices are significantly higher in Tokyo than New York

the choice of a fast prime depends on your subjects and style, but it'd recommend a 28 or 24 with a crop frame camera
 
kara11 said:
I'll be heading off to Japan soon and will be living there for a while. At first I was sure I'd take with me two prime lenses with my new 7D but after a lot of research I've decided on the versatile 24-105mm f/4 L. Although I'm sure this is the lens that will be on my camera for most of my shots, do you guys recommend I take a prime with me as well? If so, which? So far I'm in love with the build and image quality of the L lenses so I'm only really looking at those right now.

The pictures I will be taking are well...anything I find interesting just walking around the streets of Tokyo. I'll also be visiting museums, landmarks, and the countryside so definitely a wide variety of settings.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
to be honest are you sure the 24-105 will be wide enough on a 7D?

personally I didn't find it to be a miracle of sharpness either (especially on the 5D2)

i'd sooner get the 15-85 IS if you want wide focal range
or the canon 17-55 IS or tamron 17-50 2.8

don't get L just to get L
i actually dumped my 17-40L after I got a tamron 17-50

(not that I am against Ls as I do have the 24L 1.4 II, 135L, 300L 2.8 IS and 70-200L f/4 IS)

honestly i'd really think about the 15-85IS it gives a bit more width over even the 17- lenses

my second choice to add would be another nice walk-around the 70-200 f/4 IS

(although you could certainly go with a fast prime instead, especially if you didn't get and f/2.8 walk-around, hard to say which one to go for, it depends a lot on you)
 
kara11 said:
hm..didn't realize 24mm wouldn't be wide enough even though it's on the 7D. I don't really feel the need to get huge wide shots and I really dislike distortion in my photos (just personal preference). Do you guys still think I should go for a wider lens?
Click to expand...
17mm isn't crazy wide, it's only like a 28mm on FF

i think the types of shots you are thinking of are what the 10-22 would deliver, although i can't be sure

i never bothered getting a 10-22 for APS-C myself since I usually don't like to shoot quite that wide but I shoot at 17mm ALL the time
 
kara11 said:
joebloe said:
So, buy a full frame body for them, or at least a 1D.

Otherwise you're spending 2x as much money as you need to.

kara11 wrote:

So far I'm in love with the build and image quality of the L lenses so I'm only really looking at those right now.

--
http://twitter.com/jpaphoto
Click to expand...
Well I already own the 7D so buying a full frame isn't an option for me. What's wrong with wanting only L lenses as a 7D owner?
Click to expand...
there is nothing at all with using L's on a 7D but IMO it seems a little foolish to get an L just to get an L when some other lens might have a more useful focal range and/or even be faster and/or actually be sharper. IMO the 24-105 is probably the most mediocre of all the L lenses when it comes to raw image quality, so why spend $900 on something that won't make a better image and might not be wide enough? It is convenient though (on FF).

Now this is just me but on a 7D in Japan I'd sooner get:
15-85 IS
17-55 IS
tamron 17-50 2.8
maybe even some of the sigma zooms
i might even sooner use the 18-55 IS

before a 24-105L.

otoh for a 70-200 or a prime I probably would (and actually have) gone L
 
David Williamson said:
Now Canon has introduced an 8- 15mm L full frame fisheye. It has a switch for APS C and H formats. Obviously it will be a full frame fisheye effect. There is software out there that could modify this. No pricing yet, but it's an interesting lens for sure.
Click to expand...
Pricing is $1400... for a f4 diagonal fisheye. Another L lens wasted on crop (Tokina has this one covered - with better zoom range, brightness, and price - already). Just get the 15/2.8 if it is still in stock, or the Sigma 15/2.8 which is pretty cheap in Japan actually.

Then again, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a FE lens (had to make do with one on a trip to Hiroshima and Shikoku last winter when my 5D2 died on me and I was stuck without recourse to shoot UWA on my 350D... I made it "work" :p)

If the second lens has to be L, I would probably get the 135L for street photography in Tokyo. I have seen lots of these kinds of samples on this forum (the black lens helps you stay inconspicuous) and they tend to be pretty interesting. The money would be better spent on a Sigma 17-50/2.8OS and a 100/2 (or even the Tokina 11-16 for UWA and low light potential)... but they don't have a red ring.

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな
 
If I were you, and having used the 24-105 on a cropped sensor body myself at one time, I would be far more interested in getting something with better wide angle coverage as a second lens. The 24-105 is a fine performer on your camera, but 24mm is barely wide at all - especially considering the subjects you mention.

If I were in your shoes I'd probably pick up the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as my primary lens rather than the 24-105. Or I might think about complementing the 24-105 with something like the EFS 10-22.

Dan
kara11 said:
I'll be heading off to Japan soon and will be living there for a while. At first I was sure I'd take with me two prime lenses with my new 7D but after a lot of research I've decided on the versatile 24-105mm f/4 L. Although I'm sure this is the lens that will be on my camera for most of my shots, do you guys recommend I take a prime with me as well? If so, which? So far I'm in love with the build and image quality of the L lenses so I'm only really looking at those right now.

The pictures I will be taking are well...anything I find interesting just walking around the streets of Tokyo. I'll also be visiting museums, landmarks, and the countryside so definitely a wide variety of settings.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
Thanks for the replies guys, I'm learning new things after every reply :)

I think I definitely do need a wider lens now and am looking at the 17-40mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/2.8 II. I think both have great focal lengths on a 1.6x body but am having trouble deciding between the two. The 16-35mm is significantly more expensive...almost double the price of the 17-40 actually. But do you guys think it is worth it? Would love some opinions on these two lenses and another zoom or prime that will compliment the 17-40 or 16-35 well.
 
Sorry for bumping this but I can't seem to edit my post twice.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm because the f-stop is much better for shooting in low-light conditions and I plan to do a fair bit of shooting at night.

As for my second lens I'm looking at the 85mm f/1.2 for the closer shots the 16-35 can't get. I'm not big on telephoto lenses so I think 85mm is as close as I'll need.

Thanks again!
 
kara11 said:
Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm because the f-stop is much better for shooting in low-light conditions and I plan to do a fair bit of shooting at night.
Click to expand...
Totally wasted on a crop camera - with less quality than you can manage at 1/4 the price. The Sigma 17-50/2.8OS or the Canon 17-55/2.8IS will get you shooting in even darker conditions, with sharper images, and more range (if you can accept losing 1mm on the wide end).

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな
 
kara11 said:
Sorry for bumping this but I can't seem to edit my post twice.

Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm because the f-stop is much better for shooting in low-light conditions and I plan to do a fair bit of shooting at night.
Click to expand...
Why don't you just give me your money and I'll burn it for you. Actually, I'll keep it and give you ashes from something cheaper, but it'll be the same. There are other f/2.8 choices that are DESIGNED to work with a crop sensor camera, and they weigh less and cost less.
kara11 said:
As for my second lens I'm looking at the 85mm f/1.2 for the closer shots the 16-35 can't get. I'm not big on telephoto lenses so I think 85mm is as close as I'll need.
Click to expand...
An 85/1.2 is not a "telephoto" lens. Get a 100/2.8L IS macro, which will be infinitely more useful, unless you're going to Japan to photograph models.

You say you already have a 7D so you can't get a full frame body, but then you talk about buying $4000 of glass, so you certainly could get a used or new full frame body if you felt like it. If you're going to spend that much money, try not to waste it in a way that annoys everyone around you, or if that's what you're going to do, can you please do it quietly.

--
http://twitter.com/jpaphoto
 
kara11 said:
Thanks for the replies guys, I'm learning new things after every reply :)

I think I definitely do need a wider lens now and am looking at the 17-40mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/2.8 II. I think both have great focal lengths on a 1.6x body but am having trouble deciding between the two. The 16-35mm is significantly more expensive...almost double the price of the 17-40 actually. But do you guys think it is worth it? Would love some opinions on these two lenses and another zoom or prime that will compliment the 17-40 or 16-35 well.
Click to expand...
honestly i think you need to quit with the L obsession hah
(or save it for a prime or a longer zoom like a 70-200)

i really don't think the 17-40 or 16-35 are worth it
and 16-35 now is getting pretty restrictive on the long end (even the 17-40 is)

I even had a 17-40 and after very careful comparison for a week including both artifical tests and a real world shoot on a hike, as I said, I sold the L and kept the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (slightly sharper overall or at least equal, less CA on the long end, faster at f/2.8, longer reach, focused as well or better in my lucks of the draw, smaller, lighter, slightly better contrast at the edges the only thing it lost at was slightly less contrasty in the center where the 17-40L is about as rich and contrasty as any lens ever)

honestly i would way look into 15-85 IS or 17-55 IS or tamron 17-50 2.8 before the 17-40 or 16-35 on a crop camera.... more useful, sometimes less expensive, often lighter, generally as sharp

if you must have an L i'd save that for a prime or a 70-200 (or maybe if canon actually does release a new wide zoom L with the 1ds4 in a couple weeks)
 
Chez Wimpy said:
kara11 said:
Anyway, I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm because the f-stop is much better for shooting in low-light conditions and I plan to do a fair bit of shooting at night.
Click to expand...
Totally wasted on a crop camera - with less quality than you can manage at 1/4 the price. The Sigma 17-50/2.8OS or the Canon 17-55/2.8IS will get you shooting in even darker conditions, with sharper images, and more range (if you can accept losing 1mm on the wide end).

--
Click to expand...
+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top