f2.8 Lens Opinions?

kcui · April 22, 2011

I'm mostly an outdoor / landscape photographer but am trying to get more indoor / people shots into my repertoire.

I really need a decent fast lens, an I have been looking at some of the 2.8 aperture lenses out there. I currently have a Canon EF 24-105L f/4 (for general purpose) and a Tokina f/2.8 11-16 (when I need wide-angle landscape). The latter is fast but I use the wide angle for landscapes, and I think I want something better (and not as wide) for standard indoor photography.

The candidates:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM

I currently shoot on a Canon 7D (crop sensor)

I am having a tough time deciding. I main concern is image quality, but price is a factor, although not necessarily the deciding.

My thoughts on each:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM -

I hear this is probably one of the best fast lenses for a Crop sensor, and the IQ matches if not exceeds that of it's 'L'
counterparts. I am somewhat put off by the EF-S mount, as in the future I may consider moving up to a Full Frame. However this would not happen for years and I can always sell the EF-S lens.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM -

I'm not sure if the focal range is too limited for my needs.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM -

I'm am heavily leaning toward this, and the focal range seems better for more general purpose shooting. However it is expensive (then again so are the other lenses). This leads me to the next candidate, the...

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM -

Not to be confused with the non-HSM model.
I have read mixed reviews. Some are great, others seem to rate this as sub-par to the Canon 24-70mm. I'm not sure if I would want to take a gamble on getting a good lens or not...

Sorry that I haven't narrowed it down to 2 lenses, so asking opinions on 4 at once might kind of be a lot. But I'm interested in hearing opinions (and window shopping is fun!).

Thanks!

ziggy53 · April 22, 2011

kcui wrote: »

I'm mostly an outdoor / landscape photographer but am trying to get more indoor / people shots into my repertoire.

I really need a decent fast lens, an I have been looking at some of the 2.8 aperture lenses out there. I currently have a Canon EF 24-105L f/4 (for general purpose) and a Tokina f/2.8 11-16 (when I need wide-angle landscape). The latter is fast but I use the wide angle for landscapes, and I think I want something better (and not as wide) for standard indoor photography.

...

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM -

I hear this is probably one of the best fast lenses for a Crop sensor, and the IQ matches if not exceeds that of it's 'L'
counterparts. I am somewhat put off by the EF-S mount, as in the future I may consider moving up to a Full Frame. However this would not happen for years and I can always sell the EF-S lens.
...

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is one of a few of my lenses that I would replace immediately if something happened to it. It's a joy to use for wedding and event work and image quality is truly up in "L" class. There are times when I wish it had better build quality but the truth is that the build quality seems sufficient and I don't have any issues or real problems whatsoever.

It would be my highest recommendation for both social events and a great walk-a-round lens.

kcui · April 22, 2011

Thanks Ziggy, I appreciate the feedback. Everything I've read about that lens has been extremely positive.

I am not concerned so much with Build Quality and the weather sealing afforded by the 'L' lenses. Build Quality seems marginal and too much of an aesthetic factor for it to sway me one way over another. But perhaps I am not giving the advantages of a superior build enough credit?

NeilL · April 22, 2011

kcui wrote: »

Thanks Ziggy, I appreciate the feedback. Everything I've read about that lens has been extremely positive.

I am not concerned so much with Build Quality and the weather sealing afforded by the 'L' lenses. Build Quality seems marginal and too much of an aesthetic factor for it to sway me one way over another. But perhaps I am not giving the advantages of a superior build enough credit?

My feeling is that, differently to many premium consumables, expensive glass is not just about making the photographer feel better. I have all Canon L glass (7 pieces) and all the way from protection and hardwearing, through security of manipulation in your hands, to breathtaking resolution in the image produced, to resale value, all these pieces are worth the sacrifice! There are very nice alternatives, sure, but when looked at beside top glass, these have greater limitations. Those limitations might be outside the requirements you have, and therefore not affect your images. That's all well and good.

In your case, while you are feeling your way into a different genre, why not consider renting?

Neil

divamum · April 22, 2011

If you can afford it, don't need extra length, don't mind EFS (and yes, it holds is resale very well) and don't need weather-sealing of an L, then Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

If budget limited, then the Tamron 17-50 (a lens I don't see on your list). The optics are excellent and I have nothing but praise for mine - it's been a real workhouse. Reliable, light and supersharp. AF isn't as fast as Canon's USM in low-light/low-contrast situations (although it will lock on), but if you're shooting with flash indoors - or in reasonable light - then it's more than fine. It's also EFS, but used copies can be picked up for around $300 (and it's popular enough that it's an easy lens to sell if/when you find you don't need it).

If you need more than a 50mm focal length - and accept that you may need to try more than one copy to snag a sharp one (significant copy variance on this lens, as I discovered when I bought one last month: very happy ending - LOVE it in the end! - but it did take two copies to get there), then Canon 24-70L. Now that I'm using one, I can see exactly why it's such a workhorse for wedding photographers and PJ pros. AF is superfast and - on a good copy - it's very sharp even wide open (esp a tickle in from maximum and minimum focal lengths, even as little as a milimeter or two). Colour and contrast are exceptional. I sincerely hope that the rumored V2 is in the pipeline as with IS it would be close to a perfect lens for me (although I suspect the v2 when it finally appears will induce severe sticker shock!)

Matthew Saville · April 23, 2011

Honestly I can only recommend the 16-35 mk2 if full-frame is in your VERY near future; because it is such a beast of an expensive, big (82mm!) lens that it's just not a good way to spend your money as crop sensor shooter. Yes, it might be useful in the long run, but ONLY after your style develops in that particular direction, which it may not. You may end up deciding that a 70-200 is much more your workhorse, and honestly I find that for me as a wedding and portrait photographer, that range is MUCH more useful as a zoom than the mid-range. I could shoot nothing but primes on the wider and mid-range, if I had just one 70-200 range telephoto prime, on full-frame.

Speaking of wide angle primes, another reason I don't think you need the 16-35 mk2 is that the Tokina 11-16 actually does SUPER at 16mm on full-frame! Of course you'd need to borrow a 5D mk2 and test your particular copy, but chances are that for photojournalism, the Tokina "16mm 2.8 full-frame quasi-prime" is GREAT.

Especially if you get the 24-70 to go with it. If you have 16mm covered and then 24mm+, again a 16-35 is kind of a waste, unless your style ALWAYS puts you in that range, It might, since you enjoy landscape photography, but it's better to determine your style before plunking down thousands and thousands on the "wrong" lens...

HOWEVER, I honestly can't say that the current Canon 24-70 is worth it. It's the oldest Canon fast pro zoom that has not had a mk2 version yet; Canon has made mk2 versions of MANY other lenses including the 16-35 and 70-200; which leads me to believe that a 24-70 mk2 is coming any day now. That, and the fact that, not to start a fight, but the semi-recently made Nikon 24-70 just totally shames the Canon. So yeah, if you decide that 24-70mm is really your style, I'd rent for now (especially if you don't yet have full-frame) ...and wait to see what Canon does in the near future. You could buy the Sigma 24-70 in the meantime, it will hold it's resale value very decently if you take good care of it. EX lenses hold their resale value almost as well as L lenses, within 10% I'd say.

So, there you have it. The 17-55 Canon, or maybe the new Sigma 17-50 which also has stabilization. Both are a worthy investment if you have a year of solid shooting ahead of you, in low light with portraits etc.

I might personally prefer to just have a 50mm and 85mm prime though, since shooting on a crop sensor it is very important to keep your ISO down and your shutter speed up, and maximizing your shallow depth.

But everyone has their own style, and everyone has their own standards, habits, phases, etc. Good luck!

=Matt=

divamum · April 23, 2011

That, and the fact that, not to start a fight, but the semi-recently made Nikon 24-70 just totally shames the Canon.

No fight from me: I'd agree with you that the Nikon version is a more impressive lens than Canon's (although I must reiterate I'm thrilled with the copy I wound up with in the end - couldn't be happier with it, and it absolutely confirms to me how much I've been missing that 50-70 focal length, even with the 7d's crop factor).

However, I wouldn't hold your breath on a v2 being here all that soon. It's been rumoured since forever but nothing concrete has been announced yet, and with the Japanese earthquake setbacks I'd be surprised to see one in production - and readily available - in the short term.

One thing I'm starting to notice: for 3rd-party standard zooms it seems that Nikon shooters gravitate towards Sigma, and Canon users to Tamron. This may merely be the perception of it, but I do know when I was looking for a used Sigma 50-150 in a Canon mount I could find plenty of decent copies for *Nikon*, but a Canon version was like searching for a needle in a haystack (and the only one I found turned out to have significant focus issues at 2.8 and the seller withdrew the listing as soon as he realised it would need calibration). Similarly, many Nikon shooters give the 24-70os good reviews, but Canon reviewers regularly cite focus issues. Is it a technical thing which makes Sigma's lenses more suited to Nikon's architecture? Just curious - it may merely be some kind of "statistical clumping" among the comments and reviews I've seen and not really the case at all, but it certainly does *seem* that way.

kcui · April 23, 2011

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am mostly likely going to take a serious look at the 17-55

NeilL wrote:

In your case, while you are feeling your way into a different genre, why not consider renting?
Neil

Call it a character flaw of mine, but I'd rather buy fully confident in my purchase. Renting seems like a hassle...Then again I've never rented before so maybe I'm being stubborn and ignorant

divamum wrote:

If you need more than a 50mm focal length - and accept that you may need to try more than one copy to snag a sharp one (significant copy variance on this lens, as I discovered when I bought one last month: very happy ending - LOVE it in the end! - but it did take two copies to get there), then Canon 24-70L.

I have my Canon 24-105mm, and I was thinking there is took much overlap between it and 24-70 to warrant the purchase.

Matthew Saville wrote:

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice!

Matthew Saville · April 23, 2011

divamum wrote: »

No fight from me: I'd agree with you that the Nikon version is a more impressive lens than Canon's (although I must reiterate I'm thrilled with the copy I wound up with in the end - couldn't be happier with it, and it absolutely confirms to me how much I've been missing that 50-70 focal length, even with the 7d's crop factor).

Indeed, many people have stellar copies of the 24-70 L and I've shot with a couple of them myself. But the majority do seem to be, especially on full frame toward the edges, well to put it nicely, purely for photojournalistic use. ;-)

divamum wrote: »

However, I wouldn't hold your breath on a v2 being here all that soon. It's been rumoured since forever but nothing concrete has been announced yet, and with the Japanese earthquake setbacks I'd be surprised to see one in production - and readily available - in the short term.

True that the natural disaster is seriously affecting Japanese manufacturing. :-( ...However considering that the original 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 L IS were first announced in late 2001 and replaced with mk2 versions in 2007 and 2010, I would say that the 24-70, released in late 2002, OUGHT to be replaced by later this year.

divamum wrote: »

One thing I'm starting to notice: for 3rd-party standard zooms it seems that Nikon shooters gravitate towards Sigma, and Canon users to Tamron. This may merely be the perception of it, but I do know when I was looking for a used Sigma 50-150 in a Canon mount I could find plenty of decent copies for *Nikon*, but a Canon version was like searching for a needle in a haystack (and the only one I found turned out to have significant focus issues at 2.8 and the seller withdrew the listing as soon as he realised it would need calibration). Similarly, many Nikon shooters give the 24-70os good reviews, but Canon reviewers regularly cite focus issues. Is it a technical thing which makes Sigma's lenses more suited to Nikon's architecture? Just curious - it may merely be some kind of "statistical clumping" among the comments and reviews I've seen and not really the case at all, but it certainly does *seem* that way.

Most likely a statistical clumping, I'd say. In my real-world experience, coming into contact with literally hundreds of photographers here in Southern California, I'd say that the more prominent statistic is that Sigma just outnumbers Tamron and Tokina, period. And rightfully so in most cases, Sigma is the only maker with the development of HSM and OS, or at least they have been the only one for a loooonng time. (I think Tamron is just now finally starting to make a few new lenses with USM-type autofocus, and/or stabilization. But only one or two, so far...)

I hardly ever recommend Tamron lenses for this reason, unless a photographer is truly prioritizing compact size and weight and on a serious budget. The rest of the time, I only ever recommend Sigma EX lenses, and maybe a couple Tokinas like the stellar 11-16...

=Matt=

chrisjohnson · April 24, 2011

A buddy of mine owns a camera shop here for over thirty years and has sold hundreds of the 24-70 f2.8L. He calls this a "lens for life". Now I read all these stories on the net about good copies and bad copies and I take them with a big pinch of salt - especially when they originate from people who are buying second-hand. I asked him about this bad copy story and he said it happens so rarely that he will usually swap without asking questions to keep the customer happy, and when he checks with a different body it tends to be "no trouble found" and so perhaps a fault with the body or a user error or just how the customer feels which is good enough for him on a >1000$ lens purchase and from a good customer. On very rare occasions - he could not remember the last time with 24-70 - he may return to Canon who also replace with no questions asked.

Now this is a pro site and then we really need a bit more data before we pass judgement. I respect the individuals who tell us their anecdotes but something tells me that a Canon lens that is in production for pro-users since 2002 is going to provide a reliable experience. I have a big respect for Japanese quality standards and their continual improvements. As far as I know none of us have the data to judge the 24-70 on good/bad copy arguments. The only people who really know are Canon and they are not providing the data.

There is a persuasive logic behind the argument that 24-70 is an old design. Sensor resolution has improved since 2002, and I am confident that the next iteration will be better if you want to wait.

Personally I use a 17-55 2.8 EFS and am happy to recommend this to anybody with a crop Canon camera. Whether it is a good or bad copy I don't know, I never tried to check. All I can say is that it delivers what it promised to deliver and if there is any dust behing the front element after three years it is not intefering with the pictures. The 17-55 is some 30% cheaper than the 24-70 and I use it a lot more than I thought I would at the 17mm end. If it broke tomorrow I would replace it without even looking at the 24-70L . The main reason that I am curious about 24-70 is that I am thinking of upgrading to a 5DMk2.

Coming back to kcui's requirements and with him already owning a 24-105L, I think the 17-55 or 16-35L would do the indoor job. I suspect though he is used to the L aesthetics and will feel happiest with the 16-35L, the red ring, and perhaps a 50mm 1.4 for really low light experience. This is a luxury problem and, indoors, weathproofing is not normally an issue unless you live in Ireland

divamum · April 24, 2011

Good post, Golden, and to some extent I agree with you, despite having had my own "copy variance" experience quite recently. However... I remember last month when I was first considering purchasing a 24-70, Borrowlenses - who we can safely assume have seen many copies of this lens in their rental business - chimed in about copy variance and strongly recommended that I test, test, test and send it back if I wasn't happy with the results of the unit I received (I did, I wasn't, and the replacement is absolutely fantastic and everything I'd hoped for).

Also... if these problems are more to do with unrealistic expectations, sticker shock etc, why not the same kinds of responses on equally high-priced lenses, eg the 70-200 is lenses, 135L, 85L etc etc. You don't hear anything like as many grumbles about having to swap those out to find a consistently sharp copy. I think it's fair to say that the 24-70 is great... except when it isn't. I'd agree it's a "lens for life" - the only thing that I can imagine making me want to sell mine is an improved v2 (ideally with IS). Are the problems one reads about and/or experiences simply the boundaries of tolerances betweeen individual lenses and camera bodies? Could be. HOWEVER.... in a lens that is going to sell many, many copies and be use on many, many different model bodies, it seems that Canon does need to improve those tolerances.

Again, they seem to have got it right with the 17-55 and many other of their lenses, so we know they *can* do it!

Back to the OP - I missed that you had the 24-105, so I'd echo Goldenballs's suggestion of the 17-55is and a fast 50mm 1.4. That will cover you in most "normal light" indoor situations

cr8ingwaves · April 24, 2011

Call it a character flaw of mine, but I'd rather buy fully confident in my purchase. Renting seems like a hassle...Then again I've never rented before so maybe I'm being stubborn and ignorant

Think of renting a lens BEFORE you purchase to try it out and see if it meets your needs and expectations. Especially if you are considering a thrid party lens. Rent both the Canon and the Sigma or Tamron so you can do a side by side comparison. I think of renting like trying on shoes.

Matthew Saville · April 24, 2011

kcui wrote: »

Call it a character flaw of mine, but I'd rather buy fully confident in my purchase. Renting seems like a hassle...Then again I've never rented before so maybe I'm being stubborn and ignorant

I think it is a VERY good idea to not purchase anything you aren't 100% positive will be the proper investment. You probably shouldn't spend $2000 on a lens that you hardly use, and then just $300 on a lens you use all the time!

Unfortunately, renting and/or testing is the best way to develop your style BEFORE you buy.

It may be a hassle if you don't live near a good rental place, but I was lucky enough to live near two shops that collectively could rent me practically every lens currently in production. So I never BOUGHT a lens that turned out to be a waste!

Maybe at the very least, go into local stores, meet up with local friends, etc... Do whatever you can to get stuff in your hands before you buy it. But to me the bottom line is that you won't be "fully confident" in a purchase just by asking around on the internet...

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · April 24, 2011

goldenballs wrote: »

A buddy of mine owns a camera shop here for over thirty years and has sold hundreds of the 24-70 f2.8L. He calls this a "lens for life". Now I read all these stories on the net about good copies and bad copies and I take them with a big pinch of salt - especially when they originate from people who are buying second-hand. I asked him about this bad copy story and he said it happens so rarely that he will usually swap without asking questions to keep the customer happy, and when he checks with a different body it tends to be "no trouble found" and so perhaps a fault with the body or a user error or just how the customer feels which is good enough for him on a >1000$ lens purchase and from a good customer. On very rare occasions - he could not remember the last time with 24-70 - he may return to Canon who also replace with no questions asked.

Now this is a pro site and then we really need a bit more data before we pass judgement. I respect the individuals who tell us their anecdotes but something tells me that a Canon lens that is in production for pro-users since 2002 is going to provide a reliable experience. I have a big respect for Japanese quality standards and their continual improvements. As far as I know none of us have the data to judge the 24-70 on good/bad copy arguments. The only people who really know are Canon and they are not providing the data.

There is a persuasive logic behind the argument that 24-70 is an old design. Sensor resolution has improved since 2002, and I am confident that the next iteration will be better if you want to wait.

Personally I use a 17-55 2.8 EFS and am happy to recommend this to anybody with a crop Canon camera. Whether it is a good or bad copy I don't know, I never tried to check. All I can say is that it delivers what it promised to deliver and if there is any dust behing the front element after three years it is not intefering with the pictures. The 17-55 is some 30% cheaper than the 24-70 and I use it a lot more than I thought I would at the 17mm end. If it broke tomorrow I would replace it without even looking at the 24-70L . The main reason that I am curious about 24-70 is that I am thinking of upgrading to a 5DMk2.

Coming back to kcui's requirements and with him already owning a 24-105L, I think the 17-55 or 16-35L would do the indoor job. I suspect though he is used to the L aesthetics and will feel happiest with the 16-35L, the red ring, and perhaps a 50mm 1.4 for really low light experience. This is a luxury problem and, indoors, weathproofing is not normally an issue unless you live in Ireland

This is a very good point, and honestly to 75% or even 90% of photographers out there, I'm sure the 24-70 can be seen as a very high-performance piece of equipment.

Personally however, I got my start in landscape and nature photography where every pixel of sharpness counts, and every ounce / gram counts even more, and usually, unless you're famous and selling limited edition prints, ...every dollar counts too. With those considerations, the 24-70 is indeed a little lower on the L totem pole of "performance vs cost" compared to other stellar lenses, especially any mk2 lens.

And speaking of mk2, compare the consensus, reviews, and sample images from the 16-35 mk1 (on full-frame) and mk2, and you will definitely see that there is room for considerable improvement in the past ~8 years.

All in all, I simply encourage EVERYONE to test their new lenses immediately upon purchase, and weigh the performance against their own personal standards. I know that corner sharpness etc has absolutely nothing to do with artistic vision and "getting the job done" in the real world, but it's still nice to know that your $$ was well-invested. And with resolutions only climbing higher, it is indeed wise to be forward-thinking with your lens purchasing.

=Matt=

NeilL · April 24, 2011

yes goldenballs you are right as far as you go. but it goes further. when it comes to any highend tech, the manufacturer and user are a partnership. both rely on each other through realworld use feedback and the R&D which that drives for the furtherance of their endeavours, dm's and Matt's excellent discussion mean that partly

another facet of that is what Matt is getting at, ie a highend lens is not "finished" when it leaves the factory, it is finished when it fits the buyer's purpose. as Matt says every buyer needs to "finish" the manufacturing process by checking function and calibration

@ OP, as far as choice of lens is concerned, the buyer is responsible for that, not the manufacturer, so myself and the others who advise careful familiarisation with a lens one way or another before making a purchase are talking solid sense, it's not flummery. having said that, I have bought most of my lenses because I liked the idea of them, not with a welldefined need in mind. I have said before, that invention can mother necessity, and now I have the particular set of lenses I do have, I have a need for each of them!

the 24-105 is at least as popular as the 24-70. it is a wonderful lens to handle in terms of size and weight, and in terms of reliability, usable aperture, sharpness and resolution is superior. it is material foretaste of what the 24-70II is going to be like. I would be surprised if Canon did not take the opportunity to make that prospective lens faster and with more usable aperture. I'm sure too that they will want to retain the old lens's glorious richness of colour and beautiful bokeh

as for 1.4 and 1.2 fastness, it is as well to be aware of an assessment by DxOMark that typically the design of most of the common sensors cannot make use of the theoretical advantages of those apertures. at the moment 1.8 and 2 are in practice where the results are delivered

Neil

codrus · April 25, 2011

cr8ingwaves wrote: »

Think of renting a lens BEFORE you purchase to try it out and see if it meets your needs and expectations. Especially if you are considering a thrid party lens. Rent both the Canon and the Sigma or Tamron so you can do a side by side comparison. I think of renting like trying on shoes.

Unfortunately, you pay a lot more to rent a lens than you typically do to try on a pair of shoes in a shoe store!

Renting a 17-55, with insurance and shipping both ways, even for just a 1-week rental is likely to run you $100 or so. That's not far off the amount you'd wind up losing if you bought a new one from Amazon, decided you didn't like it, and then sold it on Craigslist! Perhaps it makes more sense with the Sigma/Tamron (who seem to have higher used depreciation) or with a lens that's more specialized and less in demand (and thus harder to sell) than the 17-55, but I don't think I'd rent a lens like this as a try-before-you-buy strategy.

--Ian

chrisjohnson · April 25, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

This is a very good point, and honestly to 75% or even 90% of photographers out there, I'm sure the 24-70 can be seen as a very high-performance piece of equipment.

Personally however, I got my start in landscape and nature photography where every pixel of sharpness counts, and every ounce / gram counts even more, and usually, unless you're famous and selling limited edition prints, ...every dollar counts too. With those considerations, the 24-70 is indeed a little lower on the L totem pole of "performance vs cost" compared to other stellar lenses, especially any mk2 lens.

And speaking of mk2, compare the consensus, reviews, and sample images from the 16-35 mk1 (on full-frame) and mk2, and you will definitely see that there is room for considerable improvement in the past ~8 years.

All in all, I simply encourage EVERYONE to test their new lenses immediately upon purchase, and weigh the performance against their own personal standards. I know that corner sharpness etc has absolutely nothing to do with artistic vision and "getting the job done" in the real world, but it's still nice to know that your $$ was well-invested. And with resolutions only climbing higher, it is indeed wise to be forward-thinking with your lens purchasing.

=Matt=

Matt, i get what you are saying but if I was selling high end landscape art photos I would be dreaming of MF. All DSLR formats are geared to multi-purpose and making compromises. if someone is worried about the corners on DSLR then they should shoot to crop.

Of course if you are not making money on your landscapes and cannot afford MF then it is a different story. The 24-70 would not be on my list even, but then the OP is looking for a standard lens for indoors.

As for testing new lenses immediately - great advice. People should check that new tools do what they promised to do, like I did this weekend with my new $1500 dollar hedge trimmer - shame it does not mulch the clippings but that would have been an additional 5k so instead I am going to rake them up in post.

zoomer · April 25, 2011

Tamron 28-75 2.8 also has Macro.
This lens is fully the equal of my Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens from f4 and beyond.
If you are going to be shooting at 2.8 and want critical sharpness you will need to buy the highest quality 24-70 2.8(expensive) lens from Canon, I assume it is sharp I have not used it myself.
If you don't need a zoom try the 50mm 1.4, and much less expensive.

final_alarm · April 25, 2011

kcui wrote: »

I'm mostly an outdoor / landscape photographer but am trying to get more indoor / people shots into my repertoire.

I really need a decent fast lens, an I have been looking at some of the 2.8 aperture lenses out there. I currently have a Canon EF 24-105L f/4 (for general purpose) and a Tokina f/2.8 11-16 (when I need wide-angle landscape). The latter is fast but I use the wide angle for landscapes, and I think I want something better (and not as wide) for standard indoor photography.

The candidates:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM

I currently shoot on a Canon 7D (crop sensor)

I am having a tough time deciding. I main concern is image quality, but price is a factor, although not necessarily the deciding.

My thoughts on each:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM -

I hear this is probably one of the best fast lenses for a Crop sensor, and the IQ matches if not exceeds that of it's 'L'
counterparts. I am somewhat put off by the EF-S mount, as in the future I may consider moving up to a Full Frame. However this would not happen for years and I can always sell the EF-S lens.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM -

I'm not sure if the focal range is too limited for my needs.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM -

I'm am heavily leaning toward this, and the focal range seems better for more general purpose shooting. However it is expensive (then again so are the other lenses). This leads me to the next candidate, the...

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM -

Not to be confused with the non-HSM model.
I have read mixed reviews. Some are great, others seem to rate this as sub-par to the Canon 24-70mm. I'm not sure if I would want to take a gamble on getting a good lens or not...

Sorry that I haven't narrowed it down to 2 lenses, so asking opinions on 4 at once might kind of be a lot. But I'm interested in hearing opinions (and window shopping is fun!).

Thanks!

I went thru a similar debate a couple months back between the 24-70L and the 15-55 F2.8. I ended up with the 24-70L mainly because for me it was a more useful range for the indoor stuff i shoot. I shoot live music a good bit and 35-70mm is the range i find i use the most and the 17-55 really would not have done the job for me. I think in that care i would have been better off just sticking with my 50mm 1.4 and using sneaker zoom.

As fas as the 24-70 goes i am very pleased with mine. It puts the 17-135 that came with my 7d to shame in just about every way. Since i never really use the wide end of the lens the 24mm on a crop i don't find really limiting for me.

Here is an example pic i took at a show last month. I'm pretty pleased with what the lens gave me(as a hack amateur shooter) for sure as the color and sharpness just kill that 17-135.

ScottW · April 26, 2011

I recently went through a similar decision and ended up with a Tamron 17-50 (non-vc). It is less than half the price of the lenses listed and has very good image quality. I could not bring myself to spend $1000 for a non L lens(17-55). I was going to get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM but the price tag scared me away. I figured if I don't like the Tamron I can sell it and lose less than a hundred bucks and then save to get the Canon 24-70mm. Good Luck

Brett1000 · April 27, 2011

ScottW wrote: »

I recently went through a similar decision and ended up with a Tamron 17-50 (non-vc). It is less than half the price of the lenses listed and has very good image quality. I could not bring myself to spend $1000 for a non L lens(17-55). I was going to get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM but the price tag scared me away. I figured if I don't like the Tamron I can sell it and lose less than a hundred bucks and then save to get the Canon 24-70mm. Good Luck

If you don't need IS the older Tamron 17-50 2.8 is the probably the best bet.

f2.8 Lens Opinions?

Comments