Reading mode: Light Dark

17-55/f2.8, wait for FF or get 24/f2.8

Go to last post
R

rxb dc

Senior Member
Messages
2,105
Solutions
1
Reaction score
721
Note - dual posted to 7d forum

I just bought the 7D2 and it was a close call between FF and APS-C.

I had been considering FF (6D) for its super low light capabilities - family, events, weddings, museums, street etc., all non-professional use. With that, I had been looking at the 24-70 f2.8 (perhaps the Tamron) along with the 6D, and that would have been a great step up for my current 700D where the only fast lens I have is an old, old 50/1.8.

I got the 7D2 mostly for birds, wildlife etc. but I really like its controls (especially things like a dedicated button for FEL, easy AEB which does not turn off, exposure lock and hold etc.) even for indoor use.

So now the choices I have are:
  • Use what I have and just use the old 50/1.8 indoors or my slower lenses with flash and/or higher ISO (flash works great except for weddings etc. where there are few bounce surfaces). And wait till I can get a FF with 24-70.
  • Small addition - maybe add a the 24/2.8 which at $150 is a very cheap addition
  • Bigger addition - get the Canon 17-55 which is admittedly a little steep but can resell if I decide to the a FF+24-70. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is tempting but the long end is too restrictive I think
The one hesitation I do have with the 2.8 approach is that compared to FF, it will still be a 1.5 stops or so slower vs. 6d. Not too worked about noise so maybe this is a non-issue.

Second, a little bigger issue might be the bokeh. The 50 does a really nice job for that. Downside is that at 1.8 in an event, the DOF is pretty thin so one has to be pretty careful - and it almost does not work for even small group shots that wide open so perhaps a non-issue.

What has your experience been and any suggestion or thoughts would be much appreciated
 
I have the 7DII as well and I primarily use it for birding. I'm really enjoying this camera.

Since it sounds from you're post that you have chosen the 7DII after having heavily considered the 6D, my vote would be for the third option you mentioned (ie barring no budget constraints):
  • Bigger addition - get the Canon 17-55 which is admittedly a little steep but can resell if I decide to the a FF+24-70. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is tempting but the long end is too restrictive I think
I would buy what you need for your 7DII now without regard for any possible move to Full Frame in the future, unless you plan on "also" picking up a 6D (ie now/soon) in which case you might want to consider your "use" for each camera and factor that in. You can always sell the EF-S type lenses later (as you mentioned) should you decide to move exclusively to FF).

My personal experience only, but with regards to the 18-35 Sigma: I've tried two different copies of the 18-35 for my 7DMKII. Both were way off (ie with respect to focus calibration out of the box). I spent several hours using the Sigma dock attempting to dial in the focus adjustments for the 16 combinations of FL/distance. I ended up returning both in the end as I simply could not dial in the focus adjustments needed to deliver sharp focus at the various FL's/distances. Still debating whether to try a 3rd copy.

Perhaps this lens does not mate well with this camera? It's hard to say. I've read posts from 70D owners who are not having the same level of difficulty dialing in the focus with this lens. Also, the autofocus inconsistency of this lens (documented in various reviews)...DPREVIEW's own review for example.....contribute to the difficulty in dialing in the focus with this lens (IMO). By the way, I own the 35 and 50 Sigma Art's and the AF calibration via the Sigma dock was relatively painless in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Doug_PS said:
I have the 7DII as well and I primarily use it for birding. I'm really enjoying this camera.

Since it sounds from you're post that you have chosen the 7DII after having heavily considered the 6D, my vote would be for the third option you mentioned (ie barring no budget constraints):
  • Bigger addition - get the Canon 17-55 which is admittedly a little steep but can resell if I decide to the a FF+24-70. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is tempting but the long end is too restrictive I think
I would buy what you need for your 7DII now without regard for any possible move to Full Frame in the future, unless you plan on "also" picking up a 6D (ie now/soon) in which case you might want to consider your "use" for each camera and factor that in. You can always sell the EF-S type lenses later (as you mentioned) should you decide to move exclusively to FF).

My personal experience only, but with regards to the 18-35 Sigma: I've tried two different copies of the 18-35 for my 7DMKII. Both were way off (ie with respect to focus calibration out of the box). I spent several hours using the Sigma dock attempting to dial in the focus adjustments for the 16 combinations of FL/distance. I ended up returning both in the end as I simply could not dial in the focus adjustments needed to deliver sharp focus at the various FL's/distances. Still debating whether to try a 3rd copy.

Perhaps this lens does not mate well with this camera? It's hard to say. I've read posts from 70D owners who are not having the same level of difficulty dialing in the focus with this lens. Also, the autofocus inconsistency of this lens (documented in various reviews)...DPREVIEW's own review for example.....contribute to the difficulty in dialing in the focus with this lens (IMO). By the way, I own the 35 and 50 Sigma Art's and the AF calibration via the Sigma dock was relatively painless in comparison.
Click to expand...
Thank you Doug - your suggestion to get what I need for the camera I do have makes sense.

On the lens itself, I did look at the Sigma and Tamron 17-50(55) /f 2.8s but I worry about the issue you highlight - in terms of focus plus the resale on the Canon is probably going to be much better. The Tamron/Sigma could be interesting as used ones - I've seen some that are in the $300 or so range but I have no experience in buying used camera equipment and/or testing it so that does make me nervous.

One concern with the 2.8 (vs. 1.8) was how much background blur one can get and the amount of light. However, considering how popular 24-105 f4 is for FF, this should be just about as good.
 
I use APS-C for birds and macro and general subjects, FF for macro and landscapes and night /astrolandscape shooting.

Question is, how demanding are you about night shooting? Are you shooting moving subjects in low light? How much noise is acceptable? Do you shoot RAW and routinely do full post-processing including use of noise smoothing feature? Do you really like selective focus at wide-open aperture f/~1.4? In other words, how much do you need the advantages (and disadvantages) of full frame? Your answers could help you decide whether it makes more sense to stick with one camera, APS-C, or whether to plan ahead for full frame.

The 6D is 2 stops better for noise than the 60D, so I personally gained a big improvement for many of my shots. The 7D2 is supposed to be considerably better than the 7D/60D generation cameras in sensor noise - maybe 1 to 1 1/3 stop behind the 6D noisewise. By the way, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is essentially the same type of design for FF as the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. That EF 40mm is getting to be a favorite lens for landscape and for popping into the bag "just in case" when I am shooting primarily mid-range telephoto.
 
Nancy,
Thanks again for your inputs.

Much of the motivation is shooting people indoors, events etc.
I do shoot raw, and do full post processing including noise reduction. I really don't fuss too much over noise (less is better but noise is not going to drive me nuts). I do like the selective focus - but the issue is the trade off- how close does 2.8 get me on aps-c for bokeh and low light capability.
 
rxb dc said:
Nancy,
Thanks again for your inputs.

Much of the motivation is shooting people indoors, events etc.
I do shoot raw, and do full post processing including noise reduction. I really don't fuss too much over noise (less is better but noise is not going to drive me nuts). I do like the selective focus - but the issue is the trade off- how close does 2.8 get me on aps-c for bokeh and low light capability.
Click to expand...
The noise on the 7D MKII is much more like film grain to me. I don't mind it. I've used up to 16,000 and have been pleased with the results for what I used it for. I won't hesitate to use 6400 if I have too.
 
rweaver85 said:
rxb dc said:
Nancy,
Thanks again for your inputs.

Much of the motivation is shooting people indoors, events etc.
I do shoot raw, and do full post processing including noise reduction. I really don't fuss too much over noise (less is better but noise is not going to drive me nuts). I do like the selective focus - but the issue is the trade off- how close does 2.8 get me on aps-c for bokeh and low light capability.
Click to expand...
The noise on the 7D MKII is much more like film grain to me. I don't mind it. I've used up to 16,000 and have been pleased with the results for what I used it for. I won't hesitate to use 6400 if I have too.
Click to expand...
Thank's rweaver.

The only time grain starts to become an issue is when shooting birds and you need to crop and end up losing detail - but there, APS-C is better anyhow because of more reach.

I think I will just get the 2.8 !
 
"10-18 STM + 17-55 F/2.8 IS + 100-400 MKII combo" for subframe bodies, covers nearly everything...
 
rxb dc said:
rweaver85 said:
rxb dc said:
Nancy,
Thanks again for your inputs.

Much of the motivation is shooting people indoors, events etc.
I do shoot raw, and do full post processing including noise reduction. I really don't fuss too much over noise (less is better but noise is not going to drive me nuts). I do like the selective focus - but the issue is the trade off- how close does 2.8 get me on aps-c for bokeh and low light capability.
Click to expand...
The noise on the 7D MKII is much more like film grain to me. I don't mind it. I've used up to 16,000 and have been pleased with the results for what I used it for. I won't hesitate to use 6400 if I have too.
Click to expand...
Thank's rweaver.

The only time grain starts to become an issue is when shooting birds and you need to crop and end up losing detail - but there, APS-C is better anyhow because of more reach.

I think I will just get the 2.8 !
Click to expand...
 
Cenk said:
"10-18 STM + 17-55 F/2.8 IS + 100-400 MKII combo" for subframe bodies, covers nearly everything...

--
Cenk Ogurtani
facebook.com/CenkOgurtaniWildlifePhotography
Click to expand...
I have first two + the 55-250 mm is stm. All great. If you could check out the 18-135 is stm (you can get them new for less than $300 if you look around) it might meet your needs for outdoor shoting - good for video and much lighter weight than the 17-55 or the 15-85. But all around I'm liking the used 17-55 that I just got this week.

The 35mm f/2 prime is really nice, too.

duk
 
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