2 years, 5 months ago
I am getting the Canon 7D. What lens should I get with it (not the kit one)?
I'm considering the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8. Which is better? If I get a 70-200 at some point, I suppose the 24-70 would be more beneficial to me...
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$2 Answers
Speaking as a photographer the lens you get depends on the shots (and styles) you want to capture.
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is my "go to" lens for portraiture and fashion allowing me to get crisp images at my focal point and a nice soft background. I can use it in my studio (since I have the room to move) or at an event. The image stabilization is a real plus but not necessary if you need to save money and plan to use strobes for all your work. I prefer the option of using the f/2.8 in lower light situations.
The 24-105 f/4.0 is a very versatile lens for outdoor shots and strobe work. Wide angle or flat (at 85mm or longer) it's perfect for smaller studios and high quality images. The constant f/4.0 at any length is worth the extra coins to get it. A paparazzi lens.
The 24-70 f/2.8 will always put you at a wide angle in your shots but if that's the style you like or need and you also need the extra stops of light, it's a sweet lens but limited if you need flatter images or the ability to zoom in just that much more. The ability to blur the background more when shooting wide open may be the deciding factor for you.
Don't skimp on your glass. The 7D is a fantastic device but it'll only "see" what the lens sees. The time to save money is on the base (which is what you've done). Never hold back on the glass. You have a camera that is capable of capturing so much detail, making your images far superior than any other camera in that range is capable of. You'll kick yourself if you use a lens that is incapable of giving you the most perfect images possible. After all, if what you wanted was blurry focus and aberrations you'd be using a pinhole camera or a Lensbaby kit, right?
Don't forget the crop factor your medium sensor in the 7D brings to the shot. You'll actually be "closer" to your subject than the lens suggests (unless you use a lens you didn't list that is made for a medium sensor camera). So a 200mm focal length against a x1.5 crop factor actually puts your image at 300mm. Great if you need the extra zoom without paying extra money to get there.
All your prime lenses will be usable with a higher end base (e.g. 5D, 1D) if you need to upgrade one day.
My main lenses are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 50mm f/1.4 (for low light event photography with no strobe and closeups where blur is the focus - my "go to" lens for natural light and portability). I only bring out my 24-70 f/2.8 on the rare occasion I need a wide angle image. My base is the 5D Mk II.
I sold my kit lens (the 25-105mm f/4.0) only because I'm either shooting natural light (so I need the extra stops a f/2.8 provides) or I need the blurry background. If I ever switch to landscapes instead of people, I'd have to get it again.
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is my "go to" lens for portraiture and fashion allowing me to get crisp images at my focal point and a nice soft background. I can use it in my studio (since I have the room to move) or at an event. The image stabilization is a real plus but not necessary if you need to save money and plan to use strobes for all your work. I prefer the option of using the f/2.8 in lower light situations.
The 24-105 f/4.0 is a very versatile lens for outdoor shots and strobe work. Wide angle or flat (at 85mm or longer) it's perfect for smaller studios and high quality images. The constant f/4.0 at any length is worth the extra coins to get it. A paparazzi lens.
The 24-70 f/2.8 will always put you at a wide angle in your shots but if that's the style you like or need and you also need the extra stops of light, it's a sweet lens but limited if you need flatter images or the ability to zoom in just that much more. The ability to blur the background more when shooting wide open may be the deciding factor for you.
Don't skimp on your glass. The 7D is a fantastic device but it'll only "see" what the lens sees. The time to save money is on the base (which is what you've done). Never hold back on the glass. You have a camera that is capable of capturing so much detail, making your images far superior than any other camera in that range is capable of. You'll kick yourself if you use a lens that is incapable of giving you the most perfect images possible. After all, if what you wanted was blurry focus and aberrations you'd be using a pinhole camera or a Lensbaby kit, right?
Don't forget the crop factor your medium sensor in the 7D brings to the shot. You'll actually be "closer" to your subject than the lens suggests (unless you use a lens you didn't list that is made for a medium sensor camera). So a 200mm focal length against a x1.5 crop factor actually puts your image at 300mm. Great if you need the extra zoom without paying extra money to get there.
All your prime lenses will be usable with a higher end base (e.g. 5D, 1D) if you need to upgrade one day.
My main lenses are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 50mm f/1.4 (for low light event photography with no strobe and closeups where blur is the focus - my "go to" lens for natural light and portability). I only bring out my 24-70 f/2.8 on the rare occasion I need a wide angle image. My base is the 5D Mk II.
I sold my kit lens (the 25-105mm f/4.0) only because I'm either shooting natural light (so I need the extra stops a f/2.8 provides) or I need the blurry background. If I ever switch to landscapes instead of people, I'd have to get it again.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
There is an excellent review of Canon lenses at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html recommending a series of zoom lenses in the $200 - $600 range for people who don't want to spend thousands of dollars per lens.
In the range you mention, the review recommends the following lenses.
- quote -
Canon EF 24-85/3.5-4.5: Another higher quality lens with ring USM and full time manual focus. It matches pretty well in focal length with either a 75-300, 100-300 or 70-200mm lens without to much overlap or too much of a gap, so it's a good choice for the semi-wide to semi-telephoto lens of a higher quality lens pair. The only drawback is, of course, it's not very wide on an EOS 300D, 350D, 20D or 10D, 24mm being the equivalent of a 38mm on a 35mm full frame camera.
- end quote -:
Alternatively, you can get a 28-105 zoom:
- quote -
Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM: This is a workhorse 35mm lens, highly recommended as a relatively low cost, high quality alternative to Canon's cheap "low end" lenses. Much better built, ring USM motor with full time manual focus, distance scales, IR focus marks and a metal mount. It takes 58mm filters. The only reservation is that 28mm isn't all that wide on an EOS 300D, 350D, 20D or 10D since it gives the same field of view as a 45mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera. If that's not a problem for you this lens is maybe the best $240 you can spend.
- end quote -
The author cautions that you should not get the cheaper EF28-105/4-5.6 which has poorer optics, a plastic mount ring, and other drawbacks.
As for the longer zoom, the recommendation is as follows:
- quote -
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6IS USM: This new lens, announced August 22nd 2005, is a replacement for the EF 75-300IS USM. It has 5mm more on the wide end (70mm vs. 75mm), upgraded IS (3rd generation), with a panning mode, upgraded autofocus performance, upgraded coatings optimized for digital, a zoom lock at 70mm and new optics including one UD element.The sharpness of this lens should is better than the original 75-300IS and this is quite noticable at 300mm. The only downside is that the price has increased a little, but I think the new lens is worth the extra cost. I've posted my detailed EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM Review on another page of this website.
- end quote -
Overall, I'd say that the overlap between a 28-105 and a 70-300 is not too great, and it does offer a bit more flexibility in keeping a single lens on for more occasions. This is a definite plus if you're shooting things that don't stay in place too well (e.g. people or animals), and also reduces the likelihood of getting dust into the camera and onto the sensor. Even with more modern sensor-shaking to dislodge dust particles from the sensor cover, it is better to simply have less opportunity to get dust into the camera.
In the range you mention, the review recommends the following lenses.
- quote -
Canon EF 24-85/3.5-4.5: Another higher quality lens with ring USM and full time manual focus. It matches pretty well in focal length with either a 75-300, 100-300 or 70-200mm lens without to much overlap or too much of a gap, so it's a good choice for the semi-wide to semi-telephoto lens of a higher quality lens pair. The only drawback is, of course, it's not very wide on an EOS 300D, 350D, 20D or 10D, 24mm being the equivalent of a 38mm on a 35mm full frame camera.
- end quote -:
Alternatively, you can get a 28-105 zoom:
- quote -
Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM: This is a workhorse 35mm lens, highly recommended as a relatively low cost, high quality alternative to Canon's cheap "low end" lenses. Much better built, ring USM motor with full time manual focus, distance scales, IR focus marks and a metal mount. It takes 58mm filters. The only reservation is that 28mm isn't all that wide on an EOS 300D, 350D, 20D or 10D since it gives the same field of view as a 45mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera. If that's not a problem for you this lens is maybe the best $240 you can spend.
- end quote -
The author cautions that you should not get the cheaper EF28-105/4-5.6 which has poorer optics, a plastic mount ring, and other drawbacks.
As for the longer zoom, the recommendation is as follows:
- quote -
Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6IS USM: This new lens, announced August 22nd 2005, is a replacement for the EF 75-300IS USM. It has 5mm more on the wide end (70mm vs. 75mm), upgraded IS (3rd generation), with a panning mode, upgraded autofocus performance, upgraded coatings optimized for digital, a zoom lock at 70mm and new optics including one UD element.The sharpness of this lens should is better than the original 75-300IS and this is quite noticable at 300mm. The only downside is that the price has increased a little, but I think the new lens is worth the extra cost. I've posted my detailed EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM Review on another page of this website.
- end quote -
Overall, I'd say that the overlap between a 28-105 and a 70-300 is not too great, and it does offer a bit more flexibility in keeping a single lens on for more occasions. This is a definite plus if you're shooting things that don't stay in place too well (e.g. people or animals), and also reduces the likelihood of getting dust into the camera and onto the sensor. Even with more modern sensor-shaking to dislodge dust particles from the sensor cover, it is better to simply have less opportunity to get dust into the camera.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Congratulations on your new lens! I'm glad my input helped you make your purchase. You can't go wrong with that lens, it's fantastic.
I'd love a link to your images taken with your new gear once you have some if you care to share. :)