16-35 f.2.8L or 17-55 f.2.8 IS and 70-200 question

JoshF

After your good advice on an earlier question I am now looking for a lens that offers a good wide angle option and can also be my main walking around lens for a 7D. Many of you mentioned the 17-55 but I haven't heard any suggestions for the 16-35 or the 24-70. Should I consider these or just get the 17-55?

Also, on the 70-200 front - I was going to get the 70-200 F4 but am wondering if I should get the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 2.8 non IS. I know it's more money, is it the right move?

I would like to shoot:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around SF, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My Motorcycle
Local bicycle racing

Ed Michaels

Lenses for 7D

JoshF wrote:

After your good advice on an earlier question I am now looking for a lens that offers a good wide angle option and can also be my main walking around lens for a 7D. Many of you mentioned the 17-55 but I haven't heard any suggestions for the 16-35 or the 24-70. Should I consider these or just get the 17-55?

Also, on the 70-200 front - I was going to get the 70-200 F4 but am wondering if I should get the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 2.8 non IS. I know it's more money, is it the right move?

I would like to shoot:
<o:p> </o:p>
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around SF, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My Motorcycle
Local bicycle racing

Do you currently own a 1.6x format Canon?

Do you own any Canon EOS lenses now and if so which ones, even from a Canon EOS film SLR?

If you answered yes to questions 1 & 2 is the 7D an upgrade or "would buy if I new what lenses fit my shooting style?" LENSES DO NOT CREATE PHOTOGRAPHS...PHOTOGRAPHERS DO!

My lens battery on any Canon 1.6 crop is Tokina 11-16/2.8, Canon 17-55/2.8 EF IS, Canon 70-200/4.0 IS thus equals 17.6-320 in full frame conversion. I would own 2 50D bodies rather than 1 7D.

eoren1

Hi Josh
On a 7D, you really cannot go wrong with the 17-55/2.8 IS and the 70-200/4 IS combo. I have them on my 50D and they do a superb job. No question that the 16-35 is a great lens on a full frame but the 17-55 does at least as good a job (if not better) and offers more range and, I believe, a newer IS system (3-4 stops).
E

dgrincom112

I was going to get the 70-200 F4 but am wondering if I should get the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 2.8 non IS.

ziggy53

dgrincom112 wrote:

I was going to get the 70-200 F4 but am wondering if I should get the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 2.8 non IS.

Dgrincom112, welcome to the Digital Grin.

I have the f4 IS version and it is a welcome addition to the serviceability of the lens. If you need the f2.8 aperture, for night or indoor sports or indoor event photography, then the f4 just doesn't work as well and you would be better served by the f2.8.

The f2.8 is considerably heavier too, so you may need to consider that into your use.

photokandy

Josh,

An important thing to notice is that each member of the 70-200mm family is essentially a different lens -- not just the same lens with IS available or not. The 70-200mm f/4 without IS has different optics than the one with IS.

Given my experience with the 70-200 f/4 IS, I'd say go for that one. Unless you intend in shooting in low light where the 2.8 would be an added benefit, the f/4 IS is cheaper (than the f/2.8 with IS) and lighter. It also is very sharp -- nearly matching a few primes within its focal range. As to whether it is sharper than its f/2.8 cousins, that's up to debate, but for the price, this lens is hard to beat.

The image stabilization is also truly excellent. Canon claims four stops -- I find I'll get about 2 or 3. But sometimes, I can get truly amazing shots with this lens when I really have no right to it! For example: 1/30 second at f/32 zoomed to 200mm (320 equiv) -- totally sharp (ignoring DLA), handheld. That's, what, 3.5 stops (given that without IS I would have needed to be no slower than 1/320)? Now, not every shot like that is sharp, but this one was, and I was blown away.

Therein lies the difficult choice. The f/2.8 non-IS wouldn't have given me the same image in this case, but the image also wasn't of a moving subject. IS will never freeze a moving subject; it only compensates for the photographer.

Here's what I would suggest: rent both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. See which one you prefer. See which one gets you the images you're after. Only then can you really figure out which is more important to you: IS or the extra stop of light. (Of course, if you were made of money, I'd suggest the f/2.8 IS -- best of both worlds.)

As far as the 17-55 -- I'd go with that. The 24-70 is gorgeous (I have it, love it), but it isn't at all wide on a 1.6x sensor. I'd have to go to another lens for that.