need help revamping my lens setup

Chewy734 · 08-25-2010, 08:32 PM

Hey guys,

Right now I have a Canon 20D which I hope to upgrade sometime next year when the 7D's replacement gets released. In order to get ready for that, and be able to use the lens on my current body, I'm looking into my lens bag and debating on changing things up.

Currently, I have the following lenses:

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (my everyday workhorse lens)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (mostly for portraits, but I don't use it often enough unfortunately)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (telephoto)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (macro, which I rarely use)

I'm looking for an everyday kind of lens. I'm thinking about maybe replacing my current L lens (#1 above) with something else. Two possible options that I came up with are:

What do you guys suggest I do? Thanks for your help!

bosstones · 08-25-2010, 10:00 PM

Between the two options listed, I'd go with the 16-35L. However, that is because I mostly shoot wide angle and with a crop I need as wide a lens as I can get. 24-70 is a more versatile range. If I remember correctly the 7D's crop factor is 1.3, not 1.6 like the other crop cams from Canon. That'll help a little at the wide end but not by too much....unless the 7D's replacement has less of a crop factor.

Chewy734 · 08-25-2010, 10:07 PM

Thanks for you input. I have the same feeling, where I may miss the lower range of my current lens.

I think the 7D actually has a 1.6 crop factor as well, unfortunately.

scollins · 08-26-2010, 02:28 AM

I'm a Nikon shooter, so things don't exactly match up, but....

My lenses on a D300 (1.5x crop) are
17-35 f2.8
50mm f1.8
70-200 VR f2.8

I love the 17-35, especially since it has a ridiculous close focus ability (11", from the back!) I'm sure the Canon delivers similar image results.

But, that zoom gap from 35mm to 70mm has caused me some problems in certain situations. I was shooting my daughter's pre-school graduation, and the 24-70 was the lens I needed. The 17-35 was too short, the 70-200 was too long, and the 50mm wasn't versatile enough. I couldn't move forward/back to frame shots, since every other parent was trying to get shots too.

So I'm probably going to add the 24-70 at some point, and I may even sell the 17-35 and go with the 14-24, especially if I step up to a D700 or other Nikon full-frame. But the 17-35 has the advantage in being able to take filters that the 14-24 does not.

Anyway, not that much of that does you any good for deciding on Canon lenses. So it comes down to what you shoot the most I suppose. If the 17-40 is your main "go to" lens, and you don't feel like you are coming up short, then go for the 16-35. But if you are always thinking "if I could just get a few more mm's out of this thing", then certainly choose the 24-70mm.

Better yet, keep the 17-40, sell the 100mm Macro and get the 24-70! Don't know if the budget supports that though...

vachss · 08-26-2010, 10:25 AM

There's no right answer because it depends on what you shoot. For a 1.6x crop body though it's hard to go wrong with some of the higher end EF-S lenses:

10-22 (if you like wide)
17-55 (general purpose)

These are EF-S lenses that I'd consider "L without the red ring". The 17-55 is a more direct replacement for your 17-40 - not to mention being faster, sharper (on a crop frame) and with IS. The 10-22 is more of a specialty lens, but very good if you like ultrawide.

Your other lenses are all fine choices in the narrow "sharp but not crippling expensive" Canon camp.

Chewy734 · 08-26-2010, 10:38 AM

Thanks for your input guys. I think I just need to go Dodd Camera with my 20D and 17-40mm lens and play with some new ones there.

I actually did try out the EF-S 10-22 for a week before. It's a nice lens, but I'm not sure if I want to spend money on an EF-S incase I go full frame down the line. But perhaps that's too far in the future, and I'm sure I can resell that EF-S down the line as well.

Trijicon · 08-26-2010, 10:44 AM

I would go for the 16-35L, for two reasons already mentioned. You're on a 1.6 crop body and you may be going to FF, the 16-35L will be an even better lense.

I've had the 16-35L for my 30D, 40D, 1Dmk2n, and now the 5Dmk2. So I've been on all crop sizes. The lense is my workhorse. I do like to shoot on the wide end alot.

I'd stay away from the current 24-70L, too many quality issues. I've had 4 in my life time and all had to be returned and calibrated and still was not a sharp lense. I ended up ditching it and getting a 85L. Later, consider maybe the Tamron 28-75 if you miss that range, I heard good things about it.

Chewy734 · 08-26-2010, 10:54 AM

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm actually leaning towards that one as well. But, how well will that lens do for portraits, etc? It's pretty wide, so I don't know how well it'll work for an everyday kind of lens?

Trijicon · 08-26-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm actually leaning towards that one as well. But, how well will that lens do for portraits, etc? It's pretty wide, so I don't know how well it'll work for an everyday kind of lens?

That's what the 50mm is for! (I know its tough to switch lenses on the fly) You should be able to get away with the 16-35L at the 35mm end, but still watch out for distortion. On a 20D, the crop might take care of the edge distortion. I usually never shoot people with my 16-35L on the 5D2, the distortion is too crazy.

You should try and commit yourself to the 50 for portraits. Try it for your next dinner party or get together. Its great for sniping candids too.

Chewy734 · 08-26-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trijicon

That's what the 50mm is for! (I know its tough to switch lenses on the fly) You should be able to get away with the 16-35L at the 35mm end, but still watch out for distortion. On a 20D, the crop might take care of the edge distortion. I usually never shoot people with my 16-35L on the 5D2, the distortion is too crazy.

You should try and commit yourself to the 50 for portraits. Try it for your next dinner party or get together. Its great for sniping candids too.

Yeah, I know. I'm just so used to zoom lenses, that prime's are a little hassle to get just right... but I guess that's what post-processing in Aperture is for, right?

Plus it looks so damn funny installed on a large camera body (since I have a battery grip too).

I'll play with the 16-35L later today at the shop too and see how things look. I figured there would be some distortion at the 35mm end, but I'll see if it's something I can live with. Thanks man.

bosstones · 08-26-2010, 12:47 PM

I have a portrait shot at home I could post up. I stopped by the Getty Center before a flight home eariler this year and was curious how the 16-35L compared with the 85mm for a portrait shot. I grabbed a pic of one of the birds of paradise flowers they had. I can post it up tonight if you're interested.

I tend to shoot wide so that's why I went with the 16-35 eariler this year. I do miss my 10-22 sometimes, though. That is a great lens for my crop body.

Chewy734 · 08-26-2010, 12:54 PM

Sure Jeff, that would be great... bird of paradise are pretty cool flowers

inabis · 08-26-2010, 07:23 PM

I bought my 7D a little while back and have the following

10-22mm
24-70mmL
50mm 1.4

the 7D and the 24-70 give me some amazingly sharp pics. Sorry Trijicon for your experience, that really sucks. This lens is amazing!

bosstones · 08-27-2010, 01:13 AM

Okay, so not quite an apples/apples comparison since the lighting is different and what not but here is a shot with the 16-35L @ 30mm and one with the 85mm prime. All I did was resize down to a max dimension of 800 pixels horizontally (no unsharp max after resizing, either). I included links to the originals if you're curious what the full sized looks like.

85mm prime:

original w/ 85mm prime

16-35L (@ 30mm):

original w/ 16-35L @ 30mm

ichiban · 08-27-2010, 06:33 AM

sell everything(cept maybe the 50). Get 17-55 2.8 IS , and tokina 11-16 2.8, buy both used, you'll probably need to add some money in still. The lenses will hold their value, so when you go FF, you can unload them for pretty much how much you paid for them. And the Tokina can be used as a 16mm fixed on FF fyi.

Chewy734 · 08-27-2010, 10:52 AM

Thanks for the pics Jeff. I actually went down to my local camera store yesterday and checked out both the EF 16-35mm and the EF 24-70mm L lenses. I think for an everyday sort of lens the EF 24-70mm one would be best. After playing with it, the f/2.8 aperture was awesome.

Ichiban, that Tokina is pretty sweet and would fit the bill for my landscape pictures. Where do you recommend I purchase a used one? Any suggestions on where would be a good place to sell lenses too?

remmib · 08-27-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inabis

I bought my 7D a little while back and have the following

10-22mm
24-70mmL
50mm 1.4

the 7D and the 24-70 give me some amazingly sharp pics. Sorry Trijicon for your experience, that really sucks. This lens is amazing!

LOL, that's exactly what I've got and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

ichiban · 08-27-2010, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Ichiban, that Tokina is pretty sweet and would fit the bill for my landscape pictures. Where do you recommend I purchase a used one? Any suggestions on where would be a good place to sell lenses too?

photography-on-the.net is a pretty good place, and fredmiranda.cm is ggood as well. and then of course there's craigslist.

08-25-2010, 08:32 PM	#1
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	need help revamping my lens setup Hey guys, Right now I have a Canon 20D which I hope to upgrade sometime next year when the 7D's replacement gets released. In order to get ready for that, and be able to use the lens on my current body, I'm looking into my lens bag and debating on changing things up. Currently, I have the following lenses: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (my everyday workhorse lens) Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (mostly for portraits, but I don't use it often enough unfortunately) Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (telephoto) Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (macro, which I rarely use) I'm looking for an everyday kind of lens. I'm thinking about maybe replacing my current L lens (#1 above) with something else. Two possible options that I came up with are: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM What do you guys suggest I do? Thanks for your help! __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

08-25-2010, 10:00 PM	#2
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1248 Rep 1,599 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	Between the two options listed, I'd go with the 16-35L. However, that is because I mostly shoot wide angle and with a crop I need as wide a lens as I can get. 24-70 is a more versatile range. If I remember correctly the 7D's crop factor is 1.3, not 1.6 like the other crop cams from Canon. That'll help a little at the wide end but not by too much....unless the 7D's replacement has less of a crop factor. __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-25-2010, 10:07 PM	#3
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Thanks for you input. I have the same feeling, where I may miss the lower range of my current lens. I think the 7D actually has a 1.6 crop factor as well, unfortunately. __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 02:28 AM	#4
scollins Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin' 148 Rep 2,372 Posts Drives: 2024 X3 M40i Join Date: May 2007 Location: Renton, WA iTrader: (3)	I'm a Nikon shooter, so things don't exactly match up, but.... My lenses on a D300 (1.5x crop) are 17-35 f2.8 50mm f1.8 70-200 VR f2.8 I love the 17-35, especially since it has a ridiculous close focus ability (11", from the back!) I'm sure the Canon delivers similar image results. But, that zoom gap from 35mm to 70mm has caused me some problems in certain situations. I was shooting my daughter's pre-school graduation, and the 24-70 was the lens I needed. The 17-35 was too short, the 70-200 was too long, and the 50mm wasn't versatile enough. I couldn't move forward/back to frame shots, since every other parent was trying to get shots too. So I'm probably going to add the 24-70 at some point, and I may even sell the 17-35 and go with the 14-24, especially if I step up to a D700 or other Nikon full-frame. But the 17-35 has the advantage in being able to take filters that the 14-24 does not. Anyway, not that much of that does you any good for deciding on Canon lenses. So it comes down to what you shoot the most I suppose. If the 17-40 is your main "go to" lens, and you don't feel like you are coming up short, then go for the 16-35. But if you are always thinking "if I could just get a few more mm's out of this thing", then certainly choose the 24-70mm. Better yet, keep the 17-40, sell the 100mm Macro and get the 24-70! Don't know if the budget supports that though... __________________ Scott 2024 G01 X3 M40i, Brooklyn Grey Metallic /// 2015 F15 X5 35i, Space Gray Metallic, 99K miles /// 2013 F30 320xi, Mojave Metallic, 112k miles 2019 Ford F450 STX, Oxford White 2013 Ducati Multistrada Touring S, Red
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 10:25 AM	#5
vachss Captain 56 Rep 816 Posts Drives: Z4 Coupe Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ventura County, CA iTrader: (1)	There's no right answer because it depends on what you shoot. For a 1.6x crop body though it's hard to go wrong with some of the higher end EF-S lenses: 10-22 (if you like wide) 17-55 (general purpose) These are EF-S lenses that I'd consider "L without the red ring". The 17-55 is a more direct replacement for your 17-40 - not to mention being faster, sharper (on a crop frame) and with IS. The 10-22 is more of a specialty lens, but very good if you like ultrawide. Your other lenses are all fine choices in the narrow "sharp but not crippling expensive" Canon camp.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 10:38 AM	#6
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Thanks for your input guys. I think I just need to go Dodd Camera with my 20D and 17-40mm lens and play with some new ones there. I actually did try out the EF-S 10-22 for a week before. It's a nice lens, but I'm not sure if I want to spend money on an EF-S incase I go full frame down the line. But perhaps that's too far in the future, and I'm sure I can resell that EF-S down the line as well. __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 10:44 AM	#7
Trijicon Second Lieutenant 51 Rep 280 Posts Drives: BMW 335i Join Date: May 2010 Location: Bay Area, CA iTrader: (0)	I would go for the 16-35L, for two reasons already mentioned. You're on a 1.6 crop body and you may be going to FF, the 16-35L will be an even better lense. I've had the 16-35L for my 30D, 40D, 1Dmk2n, and now the 5Dmk2. So I've been on all crop sizes. The lense is my workhorse. I do like to shoot on the wide end alot. I'd stay away from the current 24-70L, too many quality issues. I've had 4 in my life time and all had to be returned and calibrated and still was not a sharp lense. I ended up ditching it and getting a 85L. Later, consider maybe the Tamron 28-75 if you miss that range, I heard good things about it.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 10:54 AM	#8
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Thanks for your suggestion. I'm actually leaning towards that one as well. But, how well will that lens do for portraits, etc? It's pretty wide, so I don't know how well it'll work for an everyday kind of lens? __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 12:47 PM	#11
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1248 Rep 1,599 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	I have a portrait shot at home I could post up. I stopped by the Getty Center before a flight home eariler this year and was curious how the 16-35L compared with the 85mm for a portrait shot. I grabbed a pic of one of the birds of paradise flowers they had. I can post it up tonight if you're interested. I tend to shoot wide so that's why I went with the 16-35 eariler this year. I do miss my 10-22 sometimes, though. That is a great lens for my crop body. __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 12:54 PM	#12
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Sure Jeff, that would be great... bird of paradise are pretty cool flowers __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-26-2010, 07:23 PM	#13
inabis Captain 304 Rep 955 Posts Drives: E90 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Daytona Beach->Denver->Seattle->The Bay iTrader: (2) Garage List 2006 325i [0.00]	I bought my 7D a little while back and have the following 10-22mm 24-70mmL 50mm 1.4 the 7D and the 24-70 give me some amazingly sharp pics. Sorry Trijicon for your experience, that really sucks. This lens is amazing! __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-27-2010, 01:13 AM	#14
bosstones Lieutenant Colonel 1248 Rep 1,599 Posts Drives: o_0 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Suburbia iTrader: (0)	Okay, so not quite an apples/apples comparison since the lighting is different and what not but here is a shot with the 16-35L @ 30mm and one with the 85mm prime. All I did was resize down to a max dimension of 800 pixels horizontally (no unsharp max after resizing, either). I included links to the originals if you're curious what the full sized looks like. 85mm prime: original w/ 85mm prime 16-35L (@ 30mm): original w/ 16-35L @ 30mm __________________ - Jeff bosstones' flickr
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-27-2010, 06:33 AM	#15
ichiban Colonel 102 Rep 2,012 Posts Drives: 08 135i Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA iTrader: (2)	sell everything(cept maybe the 50). Get 17-55 2.8 IS , and tokina 11-16 2.8, buy both used, you'll probably need to add some money in still. The lenses will hold their value, so when you go FF, you can unload them for pretty much how much you paid for them. And the Tokina can be used as a 16mm fixed on FF fyi.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

08-27-2010, 10:52 AM	#16
Chewy734 Major General 494 Rep 6,798 Posts Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: LA, CA iTrader: (15)	Thanks for the pics Jeff. I actually went down to my local camera store yesterday and checked out both the EF 16-35mm and the EF 24-70mm L lenses. I think for an everyday sort of lens the EF 24-70mm one would be best. After playing with it, the f/2.8 aperture was awesome. Ichiban, that Tokina is pretty sweet and would fit the bill for my landscape pictures. Where do you recommend I purchase a used one? Any suggestions on where would be a good place to sell lenses too? __________________ Currently for sale: [19" Linea Corse LC818 wheel], [19" Fallen FK452 tire]
	Appreciate 0 Quote