Lens Quandry for Canon 7D

kammanns

I am in the market for a new lens or 2 as I want to take advantage of the sales at B&H...

I have a side photography business and mainly shoot portraits and corporate head shots with a 7D. I want to have the ability to shoot my son's soccer games and potentially some of the team's action shots and use for my photography business. I don't have intentions of photographing weddings but have done 1-2 for friends so you never know if that will come into play. I was initially thinking of buying the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens but have some friends cautioning me on the weight of the lens. One recommendation I received is to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 L (as I was considering that lens also) and the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens since it is lighter and smaller.

Here is what I have currently:
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Ideally, I would like to round out my lenses and have a versatile, quality selection that can handle indoor/outdoor and action/portraits.

Any thoughts or words of caution? If I purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I wouldn't purchase the 24-70mm.

The sale ends on 1/7 so need input as soon as possible for consideration. Thank you!

rainbow

No way around the weight of the 70-200 2.8. You should try it in a store to see if it is too heavy for you. It is too big and heavy for my preferences even though it is s'pose to be a stellar lens and would work well for my shooting.

An option would be to consider a two lens combo. The one that comes to mind is the 135 f/2L and either the 70-200 f/4L IS or the 70-300L. The 135 L is a wonderful lens for both headshots and indoor sports (and any other use you would invent for it! -- it is one of Canon's great lenses...). The f/4L would cover the outdoor soccer same as the 2.8 at less than half the weight and at half the price.

The 24 - 70 would not give you anything substantive over the 17-55 and 85 combo. It should be considered as the 17-55 replacement IF you went FF.

I just pulled the trigger on the 70-300L with the intent of likely selling my 100-400, which is sized similarly to the 70-2 2.8 IS and too large for many purposes that I might use it for (I tried it for soccer and preferred the f/4 IS).

ziggy53

If you mostly intend to shoot with a long-ish zoom outdoors and in good light, the Canon EF 70-300mm, f4-5.6L IS USM and the older Canon EF 70-300mm, f4-5.6 IS USM are both worthy of consideration, but the "DO" version is probably not as good a consideration for most applications because of the unusual bokeh that can develop, especially with very bright out-of-focus background matter. (I would only recommend the DO version for those people that absolutely have to conserve weight for some reason. Even then I recommend renting as needed. It's just not as versatile as the others.)

The EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS) can get heavy if you need to carry on a camera for long periods, but I do like it for both wedding/event photography and informal portraits. The f2.8 aperture also activates the high-precision AF sensor, and I do believe that the larger aperture allows autofocus in lower light than the other lenses above.

For outdoors and especially for travel, I love the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. It's extremely sharp even wide open and the AF speed is very much "L" speed and accuracy. I do take a Canon 1.4x teleconverter to use with that lens, and it works pretty well with all of my cameras (crop 1.6x, crop 1.3x and FF.)

If you should decide on the 70-200mm f2.8L, and I do recommend it despite the weight, also get a lens pouch that you can hang off your hip, to keep the weight off your shoulders and to keep the lens handy, and you'll find it more comfortable. A wide neoprene camera strap also makes a big difference with heavy camera/lens combinations.

NagoC50

Unless you really need/want that extra bit of length and/or you are going to a full frame in the near future, I wouldn't consider the 24-70 f/2.8 L when you already own the excellent EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS. At that point, I would nix the 24-70 and consider the 24-105 f/4L IS to pick up a bit more length.

No experience with the 70-300, but I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and it's incredible. If you don't need the extra stop and the weight worries you, I would also really consider the 70-200 f/4L IS. It's very sharp, significantly lighter and around half the cost of the 2.8II. When I don't need the extra stop or when I am travelling, I take the f/4.

Ann McRae

Hey

I shoot with the 7D and do a mix of portraiture, indoor and outdoor sports, and then landscapes and garden photography for fun!

My lens list is:

10 - 17 mm Tokina
17 - 40 L
50 mm f1.4
85mm f1.8
135mm f2.0
300mm f4
70 - 200 f2.8IS
1.4 Teleconverter

This is what I use:

10 - 17 mm is the newest, and I'm playing with it the most.

50mmf1.4 for portraits, and for street shooting

70 - 200mm f2.8 for portraits, stage lit dancing and general use

300mm f4 for outdoor sports (occasionally with the TC, occasionally replaced by the 70 - 200 depending on the field), birding and wildlife, garden macros and alot of other stuff. I actually choose this lens more than 50% of the time.

I love the 135f2 for portraits, but usually don't have enough space to use it!

I bought the 85mmf1.8 for indoor sports and have also used the 135mmf2 for indoor soccer. The 70 - 200 f2.8 is not fast enough for most dungeons that call themself indoor soccer venues. It is probably quite good for hockey on the 7D with the better high ISO, but I haven't shot hockey in years.


I had the 24 - 105 but found it wasn't wide enough for my liking on the 7D. It is a nice lins, but I prefer the 17 - 55 f2.8 that I have borrowed. I've heard really great things about the new 70 - 300 .

However, the big advantage of the 300 prime over a zoom is weight, and quite possibly price.

Hope that helps.

ann

divamum

In addition to personal stuff (kid, dog, snaps etc), I shoot portraits (performer headshots), and low-light events, ie theatre, including occasional dance performances.

My lens lineup was as follows:

Tam 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135L 2.0

Despite having this great lens lineup, I found myself constantly wanting something between 50-85. Matt Saville here at dgrin is a big fan of the Sigma 50-150 for that use on a crop camera - after he recommended it so highly I searched very hard for one! Unfortunately, I couldn't get hold of one new or used for Canon before they discontinued it, so I gave up and went with a Canon 24-70L last spring.

I can't say the 24-70 is a perfect lens (and I admit that if/when they finally come out with a Mk II I will probably try very hard to upgrade), but when it is good it is very VERY good and, for me it definitely filled the gap; I shoot at 45-70mm a lot now that I have it (probably my most-used focal lengths). I find the focus more accurate when shooting fairly close (ie portraits) than far/wider (ie sports/landscapes), but gives absolutely beautiful results, and if you shoot fairly stopped down you won't notice the (sometimes very minor) anomalies in focus (I regularly shoot at 2.8-4.0, so the shallow DOF shows up even the tiniest mis-calibrations).

It's heavy, although not unmanageably so - I got used to it very quickly, and it's my walkaround lens most of the time. I'm very glad I got it (although also glad I got a really good deal on one used from KEH instead of paying full price for a new one.... )

mrcoons

Two of my favorite lenses are the 135mm f/2 (my all time favorite lens) and the 70-200mm f/4L IS, both are reasonably priced too. I shoot events and one of these lenses can be found on my 7D most any time.

I do own a 70-300mm DO lens and as Ziggy said it's just not as versatile as one would like. I won't use it in anything but full sun, it just doesn't seem as sharp to me when I have to use it in the shade or on cloudy days. (It's way too expensive unless you can find a decent used copy like I did.) I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS and only use it when I shoot off of a tripod, which is not often outdoors.

Update: I can't argue with any of the comments about the 70-200mm f/2.8, I love mine as it's a great lens. If I was 10 years younger I might still be using it outside of the studio.

divamum

mrcoons wrote: »

the 135mm f/2 (my all time favorite lens)

Me too! The only reason I ever choose not to use it is lack of space. It's a very, very special piece of glass

Moving Pictures

I'm a PJ guy, often shooting sports, and there's really no better do-all combo for sports than a 70-200 f2.8. If, six seconds after hitting "send" on this message, there's a massive "Whumpf" 500 metres away, followed by screams of panic, I'd grab the 70-200. If that "Whumpf" happens after dark, I'd definately grab the f2.8 lens, as its speed has captured many an image no slower lens would. If I need to do a quick head shot for a story, 70-200 is the one to go to. Back in the day when I shot weddings, I used the 70-200 a whole lot for the small groups (two, three people). Couple nights ago, there was a clatter and a bang on the back deck. I didn't even think which lens to snag: f2.8 70-200 is my fave lens, hands down. Snared a nice image of a 'coon in the dark.

I sense weight being your concern. My counter to that is simple: get a monopod. If I had one lens to use, for the rest of my shooting days, I'd be hard pressed not to pick it.

ThatCanonGuy

You've got a great setup in the normal focal legth range. Sounds like you need a 200mm or 300mm lens. If you shoot in plenty of light, then an f4 or f5.6 zoom would do. If you shoot indoors, you may want a 70-200 2.8 (heavy - monopods help when shooting, but not when carrying the lens around) or a 135 f2.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 200mm f/2.8 - light, relatively small, relatively inexpensive. And it's sharp as a tack.

kammanns

WOW! I can't thank everyone enough for their feedback and excellent "food for thought"! I can say you have had me researching a myriad of options online into the wee hours of the night... I have done some soul searching and really thinking about where I find myself being limited with my 7D and my current lens selection. Love the 7D so that's all good... I find that I keep the 50mm on my 7D more often than not and have limitations with group shots or trying to squeeze everyone into the frame. I know people rave about the 17-55mm but I am not as jazzed up about it and maybe it is 'user error'... I find indoors I rely on a flash with the 17-55mm and realize I should bump my ISO up but I am always nervous about high ISOs... So, I am thinking I would like a step wider on a wide angle and then look at a telephoto (70-200 f/4, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 or the 200mm f/2.8)...

I read a bit about the Tokina 11-16mm or the primes of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4... I generally have issues indoors when shooting family or people in their homes as our houses are more compact... I think this would help round out my lens selection and hopefully satisfy the lens yearning.

I am liking the idea of the 200mm f/2.8 for the aperture and for soccer photos of my son's team but wonder if I would prefer the telephoto flexibility of the 70-200 or the 70-300mm. Any wonder I am slow at 'pulling the trigger' there is so much to think about.

Again, I appreciate your time and thoughtful responses to my quandry...

Overfocused

I haven't read the rest of the posts (no time atm) but getting a 24-70 on top of having the lenses you currently already have in that range is kind of just shooting yourself in the foot. The 17-55 F2.8 IS is one of the best wide/general angle lenses available, if not the best, for Canon 1.6x cameras.

I don't know much about the ultra wide angle lenses so I'll leave that to others. One thing though, is to check if the ultrawide you're buying is 35mm equivalent or for 1.6x APSC cameras. The 11-16MM might be measured in 35mm equivalent and start at 17mm anyway on the 7D. As for telephoto, iince the 70-200 F2.8 is the next expansive bracket you'd want to go after, but is quite a bulky lens, I'd consider the 70-200F4L IS? If cramped indoor shots are really going to be the majority of your photos though, go for the ultra wide first. If it's 11-16mm for 1.6x cameras.

If you're nervous about ISO noise, look up actual results so you know what you're getting, and decide what is OK to you, rather than just hoping for the best:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_JPEG.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml

kammanns

Overfocused wrote: »

I haven't read the rest of the posts (no time atm) but getting a 24-70 on top of having the lenses you currently already have in that range is kind of just shooting yourself in the foot. The 17-55 F2.8 IS is one of the best wide/general angle lenses available, if not the best, for Canon 1.6x cameras.

I don't know much about the ultra wide angle lenses so I'll leave that to others. One thing though, is to check if the ultrawide you're buying is 35mm equivalent or for 1.6x APSC cameras. The 11-16MM might be measured in 35mm equivalent and start at 17mm anyway on the 7D. As for telephoto, iince the 70-200 F2.8 is the next expansive bracket you'd want to go after, but is quite a bulky lens, I'd consider the 70-200F4L IS? If cramped indoor shots are really going to be the majority of your photos though, go for the ultra wide first. If it's 11-16mm for 1.6x cameras.

If you're nervous about ISO noise, look up actual results so you know what you're getting, and decide what is OK to you, rather than just hoping for the best:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_JPEG.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml

Thanks for the ISO noise comparison it was very helpful. Yes, there was mention that the 27-70 would be virtually be equivalent to the 17-55mm. I have been looking at the 70-200F4L IS as well so appreciate you taking time to respond.

Manfr3d

You will probably get used to the weight of a 70-200 2.8 L. However I prefer the 135mm f/2.0 L because it is smaller, lighter and faster (and cheaper).

kammanns

Well, to close out this thread... I purchased a used 70-200mm f/4.0 IS lens from BHPhoto and am enjoying trying it out! Thanks for all of the input and guidance... Now I am looking at the 100mm L f/2.8 IS as i want to add a macro lens and will be looking for a used lens as well... THEN, I will be done for who knows how long as I always have lens envy... Cheers to all of you and thanks again!