Need some group therapy on lens selection

Terrence

I will start this off, by admitting I have an over-analysis problem. That said, I could really use some input from the community on three lens lineup scenarios I am considering. My budget is limited, so I want to make as informed a choice as I can.

I have a Canon 7D, Canon 17-55/2.8, Canon 50/1.4, and Canon 135/2. I need to fill in the gap between 50mm and 135mm, but I can't quite decide how to do it.

I tend to photograph kids and families, outdoors, and family events, indoors.

Option 1) Keep the Canon 17-55, add the Canon 85/1.8 and the Canon 100. That does a nice job of closing the gaps and keeping foot zoom to a manageable range. This seems like the smartest option.

Option 2) Sell the Canon 17-55 and replace with a Canon 24-70. Add in a Canon 100 to complete the gap fill. I'll still have a hole between 70 and 100, but that is easily fixed with some foot zoom. This seems like the second smartest option.

Option 3) Sell the Canon 17-55 and replace with the Canon 24-105. I fill the hole pretty nicely, but I give up fast apertures for the limiting f/4 of the 24-105. This seems like the worst option.

I bet someone out there has wrestled this same set of choices and has some life experience to share and can help me cross the burning sands of lens choice. Please help a sad soul out.

ziggy53

I would add the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS). The combination of the EF-S 17-55mm plus the 70-200mm is great for any social event and works well for travel as well. (Although the 70-200mm, f4 is generally better for travel.)

Keep the 50mm and 135mm for those times when you need either DOF control or low-light performance.

Terrence

Ahhh...the 70-200. That's on my wish list. I figure it's a smarter move to get the 2.8 IS version. I could just make do with what I have (which is really nice stuff to begin with) and put any money I would spend now towards that. I agree that would be a really nice setup. The 70-200 is in a lot of camera bags for good reason.

jmphotocraft

70-200 f/4L IS FTW. Canon's sharpest zoom. The 7D's usable high ISO is twice as high as any XXD or lower body you may have had before, so f/2.8 is less critical. The f/4 weighs half as much and takes up way less space in the bag - this cannot be overstated! This and the 17-55 are an unbeatable combo when you're on the go. The f/2.8, while superb, is the same size as the 100-400L and is slightly heavier! It's a beast. The f/4 is about the size and weight as a 16oz can of beer.

You cannot go wrong with this lens. Well unless you're shooting indoor Hockey, or ballet. Stop wringing your hands now and go buy one!

Oh, and you'll regret going to a 24-x on a 1.6x body. Not wide enough at all.

craig_d

There is also option 4, which is to buy Tokina's 50-135mm f/2.8 lens. Their web site claims this model is available for both Canon and Nikon mount, but oddly, Amazon shows only the Nikon version. Not sure what's up with that. I haven't used this particular lens, but other Tokinas that I've had were quite good, though not super-fast to focus since Tokina doesn't seem to have anything like USM.

Option 4 is even cheaper than your Option 1, which in turn is clearly cheaper than options 2 or 3 since no $1000+ L-series lenses are involved.

As for options 2 and 3, the real question about replacing a 17-55mm lens with a 24-70mm or 24-105mm is how much you'll mind losing the wide end. If you rarely take pictures wider than 24mm, then maybe you'll be happy trading away the 17-23mm range in favor of 55-70mm or 55-105mm. Personally, I liked that trade when I was using a Rebel XSi. 24-70mm is roughly equivalent to 38-105mm full-frame, which to me is a comfortable range for a standard zoom -- mild wide-angle through portrait.

You can also buy another wide-angle zoom to take up the slack. Tokina's 12-24mm f/4 would fit in perfectly; it's a fine lens, and not very expensive. I generally favor f/2.8 lenses, but my use of wide-angle usually involves deep focus, so I wouldn't be likely to shoot f/2.8 at 20mm anyway. You'll have to decide if that reasoning makes sense for your work.

But for the standard-range zoom, if you take shots indoors or at night, you want f/2.8. I see another commenter claims that the 7D's high ISO performance is so good that you can get by with f/4, but I don't believe it. I use a 5D Mark II these days, and I haven't seen anyone even try to claim that the 7D is as good at high ISO levels as the 5D2. I use f/2.8 all the time for indoor shots, and also to get shallow depth of field in a variety of situations. No matter how good your camera is at ISO 1600, it will be better at ISO 800. And you can't get f/2.8 DOF with an f/4 lens, though of course you always have the option of adding blur in PP.

craig_d

Terrence wrote:

Ahhh...the 70-200. That's on my wish list. I figure it's a smarter move to get the 2.8 IS version.

I tend to agree. I own the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and it's an incredible lens.

One thing to be aware of, though, is that Canon's four 70-200mm lenses are all quite different. The IS models are not just the non-IS lenses with an IS module added, they're actually new designs. The f/4 and f/2.8 models are also quite different. No two of the four models even have the same number of lens elements. Both of the IS models have curved aperture blades to make bokeh more circular, which is a nice plus. Some people claim the f/4 lenses are sharper, but other reviewers say the difference isn't significant. I find the f/2.8 IS to be impressively sharp.

jmphotocraft

craig_d wrote:

There is also option 4, which is to buy Tokina's 50-135mm f/2.8 lens.

way too short.

I see another commenter claims that the 7D's high ISO performance is so good that you can get by with f/4, but I don't believe it.

The 7D looks to be about 1 stop better than the 50D at high ISO. f/4 is one stop slower than f/2.8, so, that's all I was saying. In theory f/4 at ISO 1600 on the 7D should look about as clean and fast as f/2.8 at ISO 800 on the 50D.

Of course f/2.8 is what you need for indoor action, but these days for general indoor use it's less critical than it was. Bokeh on the f/4 is very nice. I'll have the f/2.8 someday, but not at the expense of selling the f/4 to fund it. The f/4 is too good and too portable to give up.

craig_d

jmphotocraft wrote:

way too short.

The OP's original question was how to fill in the gap between 50mm and 135mm, so how can a 50-135mm lens possibly be "too short" in those terms? It's literally a perfect fit for the stated requirements.

Ideally, he's already said he'd rather have the $1800 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but if that's beyond his budget for now, he has to compromise in some way. Your suggestion of settling for the $1100 f/4 IS is one approach. The $500 Tokina provides f/2.8 and cuts back on focal length while still fulfilling his original requirement. It's a valid option that he should be aware of, and it's up to him to decide what the best choice is for his needs.

I think Sigma and Tamron also offer lenses of roughly 50-150mm, but I don't know much about them.

craig_d

jmphotocraft wrote:

The 7D looks to be about 1 stop better than the 50D at high ISO.

Actually, the reviews are mixed. Some reviewers say that. Others say it's no better than the 50D, or that the improvement is mostly noticeable at ISO levels where the 7D's performance still isn't very good, even if it's an improvement over the 50D.

jmphotocraft

craig_d wrote:

The OP's original question was how to fill in the gap between 50mm and 135mm

So? That just means he doesn't know what he's missing! Why have only 50-135 when you could have 70-200?

Having owned both the 17-55 and 70-200, I can tell you the gap from 55-70 is insignificant next to the benefit of having coverage up to 200mm. I am at 200mm all the time on my 70-200/4LIS.

jmphotocraft

craig_d wrote:

Actually, the reviews are mixed. Some reviewers say that. Others say it's no better than the 50D, or that the improvement is mostly noticeable at ISO levels where the 7D's performance still isn't very good, even if it's an improvement over the 50D.

You be the judge...

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239

scroll down to the links for the "Reggae" shots.

LiquidAir

Were it me...

I wouldn't sell the 17-55; that lens (IMO) is the most versatile lens available. I wouldn't rely on an f/4 lens for indoor work; personally, I almost exclusively use primes for indoor work because I prefer being able to open up to f/2.

I think getting both the 85 and the 100 is a bit redundant. For indoor work on a 7D I'd choose the 85 over the 100 because both for the 1/3 stop in speed and the slightly shorter focal length which lets you use slower shutter speeds.

bloomphotog

My take: You already have great indoor/low light glass(50, 17-55). You're 50mm will smoke pretty much anything available for indoor snapshots and candids. A 70-200 2.8 is barely adequate for true low light usage. I guess it's all relative though...my low light may not be your low light. Summary: You already have what you need, I would suggest picking up that 50mm and using the snot out of it for anything indoors.

If you still want to buy something: With a 7D, limited budget and and your current glass selection, I'd say you already have what you need for indoor photography. If you wan't to add to your collection, and improve your game(economically) I would recommend a 70-200 f/4. They are very cheap $599 brand new, delivered and will be far more useful than you're 135 for outdoor events. A 70-200 is in fact a bread and butter pro lens, and the Canon f/4 is probably the best value anywhere. I wish Nikon had a similar offering(I just spent $1900 on my 70-200).

sparky675

i was going through the same as you last year, I had a 70-200 f4 nonIS, and was not impressed, had the 28-135 not impressed, bought the 24-105 and love it, almost always on the 40d, next I picked up a tamron 90 2.8, it was on sale and is really sharp and does great macros, and 2 weeks ago I grabbed the 70-200 2.8 non Is used, love it also. ok I grew up with a tripod or monopod so IS wasn't a priority, it comes down to you and your needs or really wants, there have been a ton of great shots all taken with the 50, good luck, I wish I would have listened to a few here that warned me about buying cheap glass, but to each there own, good luck..

leonardgary25

I have the EF-S 17-55 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS that I use on my 40D. It is an incredible combination for both indoor and outdoor shooting. The 70-200 f/4 is very sharp at all focal lengths and aperture settings. I have gone through a lot of lenses and, expense, to arrive at this combination. I hope this helps.

ziggy53

leonardgary25 wrote:

I have the EF-S 17-55 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS that I use on my 40D. It is an incredible combination for both indoor and outdoor shooting. The 70-200 f/4 is very sharp at all focal lengths and aperture settings. I have gone through a lot of lenses and, expense, to arrive at this combination. I hope this helps.

Leonardgary25, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments.

Ann McRae

Terrance

I agree with your assessment that the 24-105 is the least desirable of the options. I actually have just sold mine.

That left me without a 'walk around' lens and I have been thinking about what to do about it. However, I think my decision is nothing!

I have the 7D (and I am not convinced yet of it being great at low light) and I have a very large lens selection, including the 70-200f2.8 IS, the 50f1.4, the 85f1,8 and the 135f2.

For indoor candids and family shots, it is the 50mmf1.4 that is my go to lens. The 85 is too long for most rooms in my house. For outdoor portraits, I go to the 85 or the 135.

The 70 - 200 2.8 is absolutely fabulous, but it is heavy, so I am less likely to grab it for general use.

I don't have the 17 - 55, but I have the 17 - 85 which is f3.5 I believe, and has been sitting on a shelf because it doesn't work on my 1d. It does on the 7D so I expect it will come out of the closet now too.

My advice is to save your pennies for the 70 - 200. You will not regret it.

ann

Terrence

Thanks all. This is some great input from people that have "been there done that".

For a lark, I picked up a 24-70 to try out and compare with my 17-55. I found I could not tell the difference between the images they produced. As expected, the 24 end felt a touch too long in cramped quarters and the 70 end was very nice for portraits, but not so much better to keep me from using the 17-55 or 50 and a small amount of foot zoom for equivalent framing. I returned it this morning.

I'm going to rent a 700-200 f/4 and f/2.8 to try out. One of those sound like the last lens I really "need" for what I like to shoot. The 17-55, 50, and 135 are definite keepers.

divamum

FWIW (late to the party - sorry), I've been wrestling with the same 50-100 gap. I currently have the 135L and 100 f2 (which I will probably swap out for an 85 1.8 now I have the longer lens) but seriously? I love the 135 so darned much, that I'm finding I'd rather step back a little whenever I can; the only advantage I'm finding to the 85/100 is that in low light I can get away with a lower shutter speed than I need to handhold the 135. That is the ONLY reason I choose to use one of them 135.... and I can just easily go to the 50 1.4 and move IN.

I'm pretty much out of money right now so any further lens adjustments will have to wait a while, but I'll be interested in hearing what you decide in the end. Post back!

jmphotocraft

Terrence wrote:

Thanks all. This is some great input from people that have "been there done that".

For a lark, I picked up a 24-70 to try out and compare with my 17-55. I found I could not tell the difference between the images they produced. As expected, the 24 end felt a touch too long in cramped quarters and the 70 end was very nice for portraits, but not so much better to keep me from using the 17-55 or 50 and a small amount of foot zoom for equivalent framing. I returned it this morning.

I had the exact same experience when I had a 40D. Of course now that I'm on to a 5DII, I'm back to the 24-70.

I'm going to rent a 700-200 f/4 and f/2.8 to try out. One of those sound like the last lens I really "need" for what I like to shoot. The 17-55, 50, and 135 are definite keepers.

I think you'll be struck by the size and weight difference of the f/4 and f/2.8. The f/4 version is just such a great walk-around tele-zoom. Definitely spring for the IS either way. I suspect that you could get away with the f/4 and use the 135/2 for low light tele duties. Could also pair that with a 1.4x teleconverter.

DJT

Wish I would have found this thread a lot sooner than now. I've been thinking tooo hard lately about my next lens. Poor Dogdots has gotten lots of emails from me going back and forth on different lenses. I really thought I wanted an 18-200 for traveling but that disappeared on another thread with quality issues.

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (thanks! Ziggy!) and a sigma 70-300 apo whatever...
I'll save the cash later in time for a Canon 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 L and just be happy.

But for now, thinking of just getting an extra battery and battery grip for the 40D.

Sorry for a lil hijack of the thread Terrence, but then - THANK YOU for posting it was very helpful.

divamum

While driving today I just thought of another possibilitiy: either a 60mm or 90mm 2.8 macro. Actually, a 90mm macro might be a good addition for me (rather than the 85 1.8 I was considering), since I have nothing which can shoot macro except my pns - sure, the 85 is useful for my theater shoots, but I can do those with the 50 1.4 and 135L without missing it too much.

Ah, decisions.

Terrence

Well, I am glad my mental instability is helping some people.

The 70-200 family is a real beauty but I know myself and if the lens is too big or too heavy I am less likely to take it out of the bag. f/4 is too slow for my liking and the f/2.8 is probably too heavy. Maybe I'll change my mind one, day but for now I am leaning more towards primes.

Here's the lineup I am going with if anyone is interested. Again, I photograph people primarily, not sports or bugs or sweeping vistas, so my needs will differ from your needs. My 1.4x TC helps me fill in the smaller gaps when a foot zoom either can't be done or I want more compression.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - The utility player and go-to for when I want to go wide. Some landscapes, walking around, portraiture, and events, this baby has me covered.

Canon 50 f/1.4 - From portraits to street, this is a stunner. Unless I am shooting a job, I go for weeks with this as the only lens I use. When I strike it rich I'll trade up for the f/1.2 version.

Canon 85 f/1.8 - This will be pretty much portrait-only for me and I look forward to playing with it. Add a 1.4x TC to this and I can fill the gap between 85 and 135. When a bag of money falls off a truck I'll trade up for the f/1.2 version.

Canon 135 f/2 - This is another portrait lens for me but it has potential for more. With a 1.4x TC it gets me to 189mm with just a small loss in max aperture. That is good enough for some kid sports where I can get close and for when I want to compress my portraits even more.

So, I thank all the contributors to this thread for your help. I have a better handle on my needs and what lenses would and wouldn't fill them.

jmphotocraft

Terrence, the 17-55 is sharper than the 50/1.4, and larger than f/2.8 the AF on the 50 is less reliable. Larger than f/2.0, it is frustratingly unreliable. I sold my 50/1.4 because there's just so little need for it if you have a 17-55.

Terrence

jmphotocraft wrote:

Terrence, the 17-55 is sharper than the 50/1.4, and larger than f/2.8 the AF on the 50 is less reliable. Larger than f/2.0, it is frustratingly unreliable. I sold my 50/1.4 because there's just so little need for it if you have a 17-55.

Interesting. I am very happy with my copy of the 50/1.4. It is definitely hard to get focus just right at 1.4, but man when I can nail down even one eye the results are stunning.

ziggy53

Terrence wrote:

Well, I am glad my mental instability is helping some people.

The 70-200 family is a real beauty but I know myself and if the lens is too big or too heavy I am less likely to take it out of the bag. f/4 is too slow for my liking and the f/2.8 is probably too heavy. Maybe I'll change my mind one, day but for now I am leaning more towards primes.

Here's the lineup I am going with if anyone is interested. Again, I photograph people primarily, not sports or bugs or sweeping vistas, so my needs will differ from your needs. My 1.4x TC helps me fill in the smaller gaps when a foot zoom either can't be done or I want more compression.

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - The utility player and go-to for when I want to go wide. Some landscapes, walking around, portraiture, and events, this baby has me covered.

Canon 50 f/1.4 - From portraits to street, this is a stunner. Unless I am shooting a job, I go for weeks with this as the only lens I use. When I strike it rich I'll trade up for the f/1.2 version.

Canon 85 f/1.8 - This will be pretty much portrait-only for me and I look forward to playing with it. Add a 1.4x TC to this and I can fill the gap between 85 and 135. When a bag of money falls off a truck I'll trade up for the f/1.2 version.

Canon 135 f/2 - This is another portrait lens for me but it has potential for more. With a 1.4x TC it gets me to 189mm with just a small loss in max aperture. That is good enough for some kid sports where I can get close and for when I want to compress my portraits even more.

So, I thank all the contributors to this thread for your help. I have a better handle on my needs and what lenses would and wouldn't fill them.

Very good lineup. These are all quality lenses and should serve you well. I agree that the largest aperture yields DOF that is awfully thin and difficult to focus, but if you need that capability you can't get it with zooms.

Do remember that more lenses means more weight and more changing of the lenses. That's the primary deterrent and part of the reason why zooms are popular. In event work the ability to respond quickly to a developing situation can be critical to getting the shot. Many prime shooters use multiple bodies.

Terrence

At the risk of re-confusing myself, would anyone comment on how different the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non-IS are in outdoor lighting conditions (think 1/500 to 1/2000 at f/4 to f/8 at ISO 200). My experience with IS is it does not help significantly in good light.

The 70-200 would be too long for indoor house environments, but I am very tempted to go for the non-IS version for my daytime outdoor needs. The IS version is too pricey for my blood, so that will remain solidly in dreamland territory.

I know there are many votes for the f/4 version, but I know how I am and when I have f/4 I want f/2.8 and not having it will bug me.

craig_d

Whether 70-200mm is "too long for indoor" depends how big your rooms are and what you're shooting. It's a great head-and-shoulders portrait lens even at a distance of only five feet. You wouldn't use it at that distance for groups or large scenes, of course.

Outdoor, assuming good light and fast shutter times, you're right, IS isn't essential. Basically, anytime you don't need external support such as a monopod or tripod, you don't need IS either, because IS is basically just another way of preventing camera motion from blurring your shots. That said, IS is kind of nice to have anyway, just because it's a little extra reassurance without the burden of having to drag a monopod along. You may be shooting at 1/500 sec or better in sunlight, but if you need to take a shot in the shade of a tree it probably won't be at 1/500 unless you're using a flash.

The other thing to be aware of, though, is that the IS and non-IS versions of the Canon EF 70-200mm lens are not simply the same lens with or without IS. The IS model is six years newer and has a somewhat different optical design (though both versions are very good). The IS version also has curved aperture blades to provide circular bokeh at all apertures, whereas the non-IS version has eight straight blades, providing octagonal bokeh when stopped down.

All of this is equally true of the f/4 IS versus non-IS models -- different design, about six years newer, with curved aperture blades only in the IS model.

I agree with you about f/4. I agonized over the choice between f/4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS before deciding to just bite the bullet and get the f/2.8 IS. It was what I wanted, and whether I could technically afford it or not, it wasn't going to bankrupt me, so I figured there was no point in settling for anything less.

ziggy53

Terrence wrote:

At the risk of re-confusing myself, would anyone comment on how different the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non-IS are in outdoor lighting conditions (think 1/500 to 1/2000 at f/4 to f/8 at ISO 200). My experience with IS is it does not help significantly in good light.

The 70-200 would be too long for indoor house environments, but I am very tempted to go for the non-IS version for my daytime outdoor needs. The IS version is too pricey for my blood, so that will remain solidly in dreamland territory.

I know there are many votes for the f/4 version, but I know how I am and when I have f/4 I want f/2.8 and not having it will bug me.

Anything you can do to reduce/eliminate camera shake is a good thing. You can always turn the IS off if you don't need it.

I have the non-IS f2.8 as well as the IS f4 versions. The f2.8 is still nice for indoors in a larger venue for events and for indoor and night sports. The f2.8 also allows the higher precision AF to engage for those cameras that support it. I would miss the larger aperture more than the IS, but the f4 IS is much nicer to travel with.

I started with the f2.8 and for sure if I had to choose only one, that would be the one.

craig_d

Another, more general point to make about f/4 vs f/2.8 lenses is this, which often gets ignored (I think many people aren't really aware of it):

The stock focusing screen that Canon installs in all new DSLRs is optimized for relatively slow lenses. It is intended to create a bright image at f/4-5.6 -- not surprising, since most of Canon's kit lenses are f/4 or f/3.5-5.6. The downside of this nice bright image is that this focusing screen cannot show you true depth of field at apertures wider than f/2.8, which means that you actually cannot tell whether an f/2 or f/1.4 lens is correctly focused by looking through the viewfinder.

Canon offers replacement focusing screens for some models (I don't know if you can get them for APS-C cameras, but you can for the 1D and 5D series) that give you more accurate wide-aperture DOF in the viewfinder. These screens are not too expensive and are easy to install. The downside of them, as you might expect, is that they give a darker image for lenses slower than f/2.8. With the Eg-S screen installed in my 5D Mark II, I find an f/4 lens easy enough to use in daylight, but I'd hate to have to use it indoors.

This is just another issue to be aware of, even if you decide it doesn't matter to you. If you don't use fast prime lenses, it's not important, and if Canon doesn't offer alternate focusing screens for your model of camera, then you're stuck with the stock one anyway. But to me, as a 5D2 owner who loves fast primes and has an Eg-S screen installed, it's one more reason to prefer f/2.8 zooms.

kdog

jmphotocraft wrote:

Terrence, the 17-55 is sharper than the 50/1.4

I'm not convinced that's true from my experience, or by this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=398&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0&Camera=453&CameraComp=474&Sample=0&SampleComp=0
You can play around with different apertures too. Looks like the 50 1.4 wins across the board. It's not an entirely fair test of course because they're tested against two different bodies. However, I've fallen in love with my 50 1.4 again since picking up the 5DMKII. It's really superb on this body.

-joel