I have just got the 7DMKII and 70-200 f2.8 and I am looking for a walkabout lens.
I know there is the 17-55 f2.8 which appears to be the obvious choice, however does anyone know how the 16-35 F4 performs on a crop sensor?
Yes. It's good, quite good.
I know the focal range is quite small about 25 -52?
But would the IQ be better than an APS lens?
No.
According to Tony Northrup on You tube you shouldn't use a FF lens on a crop body other than long telephoto.
My main reason is to ensure I have FF lenses should I want to upgrade or add a FF body.
Do you have a timeline? Or is it a general desire? If you move to FF, will you jettison crop? You might find you'll keep both - especially a great camera like the 7D mkII. I thought I'd do that too, but in fact find having both is desirable. They serve different purposes and it's great having backup.
I stopped using my 60D entirely after getting my 6D. My wife took it to Alaska and a few other trips, but basically it sat. I decided I should get rid of it before it was replaced and the price went down. So I sold it, but kept my glass as I knew the price was stable there. Then I got the 70D at a fantastic price, and absolutely love it. (I still have an XTi too).
Any advise appreciated
Pixel Peeper
I've got the 16-35/4L IS. I've used it frequently on my 70D, but it doesn't do a whole lot to float my boat. A UWA has specific geometry designed for a full frame camera. Honestly, you're doing better to get a
faster lens designed for a crop sensor.
I love pulling this chart out, but I think it drives the point home pretty well. When I first got my 70D after getting rid of my 60D, the first thing I did was start to run my FoCal software on various lenses to see just how they performed - not necessarily expecting to have to micro-adjust anything.
My favorite walk-around lens for my 60D and then 70D is my little Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. I always thought it performed admirably, and was quite close to my EF 24-70/2.8 II optically. Sounds nuts? Well, I know it blew away my EF 17-40/4L lens, not even a contest.
Here's the 24-70 performing admirably, with a dropoff at 2.8, but basically dancing a very high line of resolution (1900).
Here's the little Sigma. Notice where it's at? The same 1900 line, which only a couple of other lenses of mine match or beat. Notice that it beats the 24-70 at F2.8 and 3.5? Elsewhere, it's quite stable with no dropoffs like some other lenses.
So basically, the $600 (or far less) lens comes close to matching or even beats the 24-70 at its longest focal length of 50 vs 70. It performs slightly less well at 17, but still does ok. The 16-35 is around 1900 to 1950, My EF 100/2.8L IS is above 2000, and my Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS is around 1900 as well.
Here's the EF 24-105 just to give you an idea of its performance at 105.
I actually agree with Northrup's gross generalization here for the most part (I usually don't), a telephoto's design is such that the performance is very similar on both types of cameras. My Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS does great on both. The wider you get, the more critical the geometry is for the specific sensor. I know a lot of people think the 17-40 and 24-105 are just great on a crop camera. I think it's more a desire to have that red ring.
I'm glad I've kept the Sigma, and it's almost always on my 70D. It's a fantastically sharp lens with great color and contrast. It's small, light and well built. And, it's FAST! The AF performance is excellent, I never had any problems and it has always performed as well as my Canons. It's got its share of quirks, as you'd expect for a budget lens.
I can also recommend highly the 17-55. Although, when I bought my 60D I almost bought one as that was the same setup a friend had. I couldn't resist the sale price of the Sigma and bit (the 17-55 was north of $1k at the time), thinking I'd return it and get the Canon. After many, many comparisons we both determined that the Sigma was probably better. He sold his lens a few weeks later BTW and later moved to FF.
