Lineup-shots
Well-known member
Try the Tamron 18-270. It does all you want and also a little more. It takes alittle time to get to know the positive and negative sides, but then you have a great lens, if you know how to handle it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New lens suggesions for Canon 7D?
- Thread starter Hired Goon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 5d canon eos 7d
solidstate9
Well-known member
Great choice!
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
You'd think so ... but I'm getting grief from some of my mates who reckon that they would never get a zoom without IS, i.e. they are trying to convince me to get the 70-200/2.8 IS L, which is almost double the price of the non-IS 70-200/2.8 L.
I'm sure that 70-200/2.8 L owners were quite happy with the lens before the IS version came on the scene, right?
bhollis
Veteran Member
Although I don't own either of the 70-200 f/2.8L's, my understanding is that the IS II not only gives you a very effective 4 stops of IS, but it's also significantly sharper than the older non-IS version. Indeed, a lot folks think that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the best zoom lens Canon has ever made.
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
True, although I read on a review of the 70-200 f/4L IS on the-digital-picture that compared it to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and stated that "Both lenses deliver similar optical performance at similar apertures".
So I might investigate the f/4 ... it won't function as well in low-light and won't have the great bokeh, but it won't blow my budget, either.
bhollis
Veteran Member
Interesting that you mention the 70-200 f/4L IS--that happens to be the lens I have. If you can get by without f/2.8, it's a great choice--much less expensive, significantly smaller and lighter, and optically excellent. Bokeh's not so bad either.
The last shot was with the 1.4x TC.
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
Nice shots.
I'm trawling through the dpreview archives at the moment, looking for opinions on the f/4. I can see that if I went for the 70-200 f/4L IS then I'd probably like to get a prime (such as the 85/1.8 for example) for better background blur in portraits. Is that your experience?
Getting a 70-200 f/4L IS + prime probably works out close in cost to getting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but might prove to be more manageable than lugging around the big 2.8 lens.
bhollis
Veteran Member
That's the route it took. For low light/shallow dof, I use fast primes. You might want to consider the EF 85 f/1.8. Excellent lens for a very reasonable price. You could get the 70-200 f/4L IS and EF 85 f/1.8 for a total of around $1,500.
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
I went to the camera store today and tested a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens and a 70-200 f/4L lens.
The f/2.8 was big and heavy, but not as much as I expected. I could probably lug it around for a few hours.
I took some sample hand-held shots using the f/2.8 with and without IS ... the IS made a big difference. If I was going to get a 70-200 lens then I think I would need the IS, at least for indoors.
The f/4 lens was quite small in comparison to the f/2.8. I did take some sample shots but it was a non-IS version so not a fair comparison. I'd like to compare a f/4 with IS to the f/2.8 IS.
The f/2.8 was big and heavy, but not as much as I expected. I could probably lug it around for a few hours.
I took some sample hand-held shots using the f/2.8 with and without IS ... the IS made a big difference. If I was going to get a 70-200 lens then I think I would need the IS, at least for indoors.
The f/4 lens was quite small in comparison to the f/2.8. I did take some sample shots but it was a non-IS version so not a fair comparison. I'd like to compare a f/4 with IS to the f/2.8 IS.
For ur budget, u shud be able to get 70-200 mm f4L IS, 10-22 mm & the 85 mmf1.8.
I did like the 17-55 mm f2.8 but went for the 15-85 & bought a 50 mm f1.4 with the money saved.
After much deliberation I went for the 70-200 mm f4L IS instead of the f2.8 L IS II. I then bought a 100 mm f2.8 macro since I felt f4 was good enough for my kind of photography & f2.8 L IS II was really heavy for me. I am NOT up there in using the 70-200 & so felt its better to learn & practice with the f4.
I did like the 17-55 mm f2.8 but went for the 15-85 & bought a 50 mm f1.4 with the money saved.
After much deliberation I went for the 70-200 mm f4L IS instead of the f2.8 L IS II. I then bought a 100 mm f2.8 macro since I felt f4 was good enough for my kind of photography & f2.8 L IS II was really heavy for me. I am NOT up there in using the 70-200 & so felt its better to learn & practice with the f4.
bhollis
Veteran Member
The f/4 IS version is about the same size and weight as the non IS. If you're looking to compare IQ by taking test shots, my guess is you're going to have to do some serious pixel peeping to see the difference. But most reviewers seem to give the f/2.8 IS II a slight edge in sharpness.
You might also find this helpful. It allows you to compare the sharpness of the two lenses at different focal lengths and apertures.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm leaning more towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens now ... I can see the benefits of the 70-200 f/4L IS but I know I'll be forever wondering if a shot that failed might have worked out if only I had the f/2.8 ...
I might increase my budget to allow for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and one of the ultra-wide angles (the Canon 10-20 or the Tokina 11-16), and put off getting another prime or a macro.
Then I'll be wondering if I should be getting a 5D (or second hand 1D III) to replace my 7D ...
I might increase my budget to allow for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and one of the ultra-wide angles (the Canon 10-20 or the Tokina 11-16), and put off getting another prime or a macro.
Then I'll be wondering if I should be getting a 5D (or second hand 1D III) to replace my 7D ...
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
I've ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens from B+H ... it's not something I thought I would do when I started this thread but after playing with one I decided to pull the trigger.
I'm still going to investigate the 100L macro, the 85/1.8, and some of the UWA lenses.
bhollis
Veteran Member
Enjoy your new lens! I'm sure you'll be happy with it.
From your post I'd say you have to do some more research for yourself. What do you need most? You don't buy a lens because it says L, you buy it because it delivers something you want or need. So make up your mind! The big 70-200 is something totally different than the 10-22mm for example!
I can't help you but will make it even more complex:
consider the excellent tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for landscape shots.
consider the 60mm f2.8 macro for portraits, closeups and macro
consider the 70-200mm f4 IS, lighter than a 2.8 version and very sharp
consider the canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS and forget about the 17-40L on a 7D
good luck!
Regards,
Gravi
I can't help you but will make it even more complex:
consider the excellent tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for landscape shots.
consider the 60mm f2.8 macro for portraits, closeups and macro
consider the 70-200mm f4 IS, lighter than a 2.8 version and very sharp
consider the canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS and forget about the 17-40L on a 7D
good luck!
--
Regards,
Gravi
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
Thanks. I did seriously consider the f/4 lens that you suggested but ultimately I didn't want to be left ruing the decision to forgo the f/2.8 lens.
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
I did consider the Tokina lens, but today I bought a used Canon 10-22 lens for a price that I could not resist.
So now I have a 10-22, a 15-85, a 50/1.8 and (soon) a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Still on the lookout for a nice prime or macro, but I gotta let the credit card cool down for a bit first.
Hired Goon
Well-known member
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 2
The 70-200 f2.8L IS II has been delivered!
I did try this lens on my 7D camera at a store on the weekend, but now that I have my own copy it's heavier than I recall, but still manageable. The only annoyance is the tripod ring getting in the way of adjusting the zoom.
Some quick shots:
Outdoors: f2.8, 200mm, ISO 100, 1/1600:
Indoors: f2.8, 190mm, ISO 3200, 1/200:
I tried a lot of handheld shots with center focus on the tip of the shell spiral, but the focal point always seemed to shift. I might try with a tripod and see how it fares; I'm sure I am moving a bit when pressing the button. Maybe 2.8 is not fast enough indoors without flash or high ISO.
Now ... time to do some sort of tests to confirm if I have a good copy of this lens. I'll search the forum for pointers on this.
I did try this lens on my 7D camera at a store on the weekend, but now that I have my own copy it's heavier than I recall, but still manageable. The only annoyance is the tripod ring getting in the way of adjusting the zoom.
Some quick shots:
Outdoors: f2.8, 200mm, ISO 100, 1/1600:
Indoors: f2.8, 190mm, ISO 3200, 1/200:
I tried a lot of handheld shots with center focus on the tip of the shell spiral, but the focal point always seemed to shift. I might try with a tripod and see how it fares; I'm sure I am moving a bit when pressing the button. Maybe 2.8 is not fast enough indoors without flash or high ISO.
Now ... time to do some sort of tests to confirm if I have a good copy of this lens. I'll search the forum for pointers on this.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum