Lens choices - help please!
Discussion
I am trying to decide between a few lenses. I have a 7D, and at the moment have the kit lens 18-135mm and a 50mm f/1.4. I'm relatively new to photography but I enjoy it as I find it helps me to relax and forget about work!
So I'm thinking about the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, I know its an L lens and have read all the reviews about it. I want it. I think it'd be a great street lens, for everyday walking about and I reckon it'd be my default lens on the camera. But its pricey.
I've looked at the alternatives, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 which is about a fifth of the price, but I'm guessing the quality isn't there? Or even a 17-55mm f/2.8 for now to give me the low light flexibility but should I just stop trying to avoid the inevitable?
I need to decide sharpish realy as I'm going to Australia in 3 weeks and want to travel light, so was thinking of just bringing 1 lens with me (and maybe the 50mm)...please help me decide!
So I'm thinking about the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, I know its an L lens and have read all the reviews about it. I want it. I think it'd be a great street lens, for everyday walking about and I reckon it'd be my default lens on the camera. But its pricey.
I've looked at the alternatives, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 which is about a fifth of the price, but I'm guessing the quality isn't there? Or even a 17-55mm f/2.8 for now to give me the low light flexibility but should I just stop trying to avoid the inevitable?
I need to decide sharpish realy as I'm going to Australia in 3 weeks and want to travel light, so was thinking of just bringing 1 lens with me (and maybe the 50mm)...please help me decide!
Again not a Canon person, but a mate has dumped everything he had and went with the 24-105 plus a 50mm as a spare
Guess it depends on what your needs are, but he said the focal length of the 24-105 suited everything he wanted to do.
I can say that in Nikon flavour, the Sigma 24-70 is very good. I think with Sigma it always was specific to the lens, you either got a good'un or a bad'un, mine's sharp enough but lacks just a little bit in colour rendition over the Nikon version. But as you say, look at the price!
Guess it depends on what your needs are, but he said the focal length of the 24-105 suited everything he wanted to do.
I can say that in Nikon flavour, the Sigma 24-70 is very good. I think with Sigma it always was specific to the lens, you either got a good'un or a bad'un, mine's sharp enough but lacks just a little bit in colour rendition over the Nikon version. But as you say, look at the price!
Edited by andy-xr on Monday 7th March 10:44
I shoot Canon! 
Not Cannons though 
Anyway, keep the 50, it's too small and too good to leave behind. The 28-70L 2.8 is my choice for a walkabout lens, it's utterly utterly lush and does everything I would want it to do. Tends to mean I leave the 70-200 in my bag most of the time.
As you are using the 7D, you could consider the 17-40 4 which is a cheaper than a 2nd hand 28 at around £550 brand new and would suit your crop sensor a little more.
Outside of Canon lenses I know even less I'm afraid!
Not Cannons though Anyway, keep the 50, it's too small and too good to leave behind. The 28-70L 2.8 is my choice for a walkabout lens, it's utterly utterly lush and does everything I would want it to do. Tends to mean I leave the 70-200 in my bag most of the time.
As you are using the 7D, you could consider the 17-40 4 which is a cheaper than a 2nd hand 28 at around £550 brand new and would suit your crop sensor a little more.
Outside of Canon lenses I know even less I'm afraid!
theboyfold said:
I shoot Canon! Not Cannons though
Anyway, keep the 50, it's too small and too good to leave behind. The 28-70L 2.8 is my choice for a walkabout lens, it's utterly utterly lush and does everything I would want it to do. Tends to mean I leave the 70-200 in my bag most of the time.
As you are using the 7D, you could consider the 17-40 4 which is a cheaper than a 2nd hand 28 at around £550 brand new and would suit your crop sensor a little more.
Outside of Canon lenses I know even less I'm afraid!
Ahh thing is, also at some point I reckon I'll upgrade to a full frame sensor...so I see the 28-70L as an investment really...(can you tell I'm desperately trying to justify it to myself yet?) Which is an argument against the 17-55mm as well as I've read the EF-S lenses don't fit =/ Not Cannons though Anyway, keep the 50, it's too small and too good to leave behind. The 28-70L 2.8 is my choice for a walkabout lens, it's utterly utterly lush and does everything I would want it to do. Tends to mean I leave the 70-200 in my bag most of the time.
As you are using the 7D, you could consider the 17-40 4 which is a cheaper than a 2nd hand 28 at around £550 brand new and would suit your crop sensor a little more.
Outside of Canon lenses I know even less I'm afraid!
I'll keep the 50mm whatever, I love it too much!
As a Canon user, what everyone else has said above is pretty sound and solid. The 50 1.8 is a super lens. I personally find the 24-70 a little too long as general walkaround on a 1.6crop, hence got a 17-55 f2.8. Great images to be had with it. I would then look for a 70-200 to add to it.
If I'm honest with myself, the 24 is just not quite wide enough on my 7D... although I always have the 10-22 with me so I just make do with all the extra lens changes. Mind you, a 17-55 would always have me swapping at the long end.
The 7D is pretty unforgiving for soft lenses given the large resolution on a cropped sensor. It's always worth checking out DXOMARK.com ( Compare lenses page) to see if they have tested the lens/camera combo you are considering.
I actually have the 24-105. The weight difference between that and the 24-70 two was the kicker for me, especially for a walk about lens (and if I wan't wider I always have at least one prime in the bag).
The 7D is pretty unforgiving for soft lenses given the large resolution on a cropped sensor. It's always worth checking out DXOMARK.com ( Compare lenses page) to see if they have tested the lens/camera combo you are considering.
I actually have the 24-105. The weight difference between that and the 24-70 two was the kicker for me, especially for a walk about lens (and if I wan't wider I always have at least one prime in the bag).
Seany88 said:
I've looked at the alternatives, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 which is about a fifth of the price, but I'm guessing the quality isn't there? Or even a 17-55mm f/2.8 for now to give me the low light flexibility but should I just stop trying to avoid the inevitable?
Carefull theres two sigma 24-70's.An older 24-70 which is pretty rough and a newer 24-70HSM which is much better tho IMO not as good as the canon.
24-70L is the only weathersealed option (bar the 17-40L, both need a filter btw)
For me 24 just wasnt wide enough, so I bought the superb 17-55f2.8 IS. Build isnt up to L level and it has zoom creep but apart from that its superb.
Edit:- also IMO dont buy a lens thats right for a camera you dont own. If you go full frame in the future then buy a lens for that then, the right focal range ona crop isnt going to be the right focal range on a FF. Its damned easy to sell a 17-55 and not loose too much (or non if you buy it used).
Edited by RobDickinson on Monday 7th March 19:03
pernod said:
If I'm honest with myself, the 24 is just not quite wide enough on my 7D... although I always have the 10-22 with me so I just make do with all the extra lens changes. Mind you, a 17-55 would always have me swapping at the long end.
Yup, have a Sigma 24-70 here, and it's just not wide enough for me. Main lens is a uwa these days.Thanks for all the replies. I was wondering whether the 24-70mm would restrict me, and it seems a few of you do. I'm really torn now, I've yet to try a 17-55mm so I guess I need to get down to a shop and give it a go, but then I'm thinking instead of rushing to get another lens for my trip to Aus, should I just make do with the 18-135mm and 50mm? I don't want to regret not taking some great shots out there...its my first time I'm going and I don't know when/if I'll ever go back!
Set your 18-135 to 24mm and see what you think.
If you can live with it then buy the 24-70L
IMO the IS and extra wide on the 17-55 is worth a lot more than an extra 15mm of reach.
For reach you can crop or walk forwards, usualy not as easy to make up so much on the wide end (tho you can pano and stitch).
The 18-135 is OK but not spectacular for a lowish end zoom, any of these will destroy it in terms of IQ (sharpness wide open, af speed, colour etc). If you shoot at f8 all the time then I wouldnt worry.
If you can live with it then buy the 24-70L
IMO the IS and extra wide on the 17-55 is worth a lot more than an extra 15mm of reach.
For reach you can crop or walk forwards, usualy not as easy to make up so much on the wide end (tho you can pano and stitch).
The 18-135 is OK but not spectacular for a lowish end zoom, any of these will destroy it in terms of IQ (sharpness wide open, af speed, colour etc). If you shoot at f8 all the time then I wouldnt worry.
Hmm. I hope the OP has tried the 24/70 because there'll be a substantial weight difference. I'm a Nikon man personally but the D3 and 24/70 do get heavy as the day wears on. Fabulous lens, though, and I'm sure the Canon equivalent is too. But I do tend to agree with the reference to a wider lens. I carry a Tokina 12/24 a lot of the time. Cheap but good.
lowdrag said:
Hmm. I hope the OP has tried the 24/70 because there'll be a substantial weight difference. I'm a Nikon man personally but the D3 and 24/70 do get heavy as the day wears on. Fabulous lens, though, and I'm sure the Canon equivalent is too. But I do tend to agree with the reference to a wider lens. I carry a Tokina 12/24 a lot of the time. Cheap but good.
I did have a quick play with it but I didn't notice the weight really, must be my god-like strength 
I don't normally carry much with me when I'm out shooting so have ignored above comments about its weight but maybe I'm being naive...Rob simple idea actually so will give that a go cheers!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff