[jjalbs]

Hi

My first post here so hope it is in the right place. I am looking for some advice on lenses to purchase. I am in the process of updating some of my gear and having a tough time deciding. I just upgraded to the Canon 7D and also have an old XTi as a second body. I will probably be sticking with the cropped bodies for the foreseeable future. I currently have the Canon 10-22, 28-135 kit lens, and 50mm 1.4. I am mostly into nature/landscape photography but I also do some portraits and the occasional wedding through referrals from friends. I have also have become interested in wildlife photography and birds. Here is a list of lenses I have been considering. My budget right now is about $2500.



Canon 17-55 2.8

Canon 15-85

Canon 70-200 f4

Canon 70-200 f2.8 II

Canon 100-400

Canon 300 f4

Canon 17 ts-e



Obviously if I go with the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17mm ts-e that is all I can afford right now. I can pair most of the other lenses with either of the wide zooms.



So what does every one think have for suggestions. I am interested in everyones 2 cents?

Anything else I should consider?



Thanks

[Guest]

15-85 and 70-200f4; the 28-135 is really a poor choice of a lens; the 17-55 is interesting but with the 50f1.4 you can probably get away with the 15-85 which is rather snappy (good contrast). The 70-200f2.8 is just plain heavy. The 100-400 is an interesting choice if you need the length which you might for birds; but it is also a bit slow. If bird in flight is your primary focus than maybe 400f5.6 or 100-400.

[wim]

[quote name='jjalbs' timestamp='1302783531' post='7637']

Hi

My first post here so hope it is in the right place. I am looking for some advice on lenses to purchase. I am in the process of updating some of my gear and having a tough time deciding. I just upgraded to the Canon 7D and also have an old XTi as a second body. I will probably be sticking with the cropped bodies for the foreseeable future. I currently have the Canon 10-22, 28-135 kit lens, and 50mm 1.4. I am mostly into nature/landscape photography but I also do some portraits and the occasional wedding through referrals from friends. I have also have become interested in wildlife photography and birds. Here is a list of lenses I have been considering. My budget right now is about $2500.



Canon 17-55 2.8

Canon 15-85

Canon 70-200 f4

Canon 70-200 f2.8 II

Canon 100-400

Canon 300 f4

Canon 17 ts-e



Obviously if I go with the 70-200 f2.8 or the 17mm ts-e that is all I can afford right now. I can pair most of the other lenses with either of the wide zooms.



So what does every one think have for suggestions. I am interested in everyones 2 cents?

Anything else I should consider?



Thanks

[/quote]

Summarizing, you want to do nature, landscape, portraits, wedding, wildlife and birds, alll of this on one or more crop bodies.



Personally, for landscapes I use anything from UW to long tele, with most shots in the 17-135 FL range, on FF, IOW, that would be about 10 to 85 on APS-C. However, personally I use primes for this type of work, rather than zoooms, but that is probably besides the point.



Nature, if you want to include macro here, I have gone from a macro setup to using extension tubes and a few good primes, except for larger than life macro, for which I use a dedicated macro lens (M-PE 65). In short with the above mentioned setup and a few macro extension tubes this'll work fine.



For wildlife and birds there is really only one option in your list, and that is the 100-400L. Personally, I also use this for candids, macro with a Canon 500D achromatic close-up lens (goes to 1:1 at 400 mm) and landscapes as well, not just nature, wildlife and birds - it is the only zoom lens left in my own arsenal.



For portraits I use anything that comes in handy for what I'd want to achieve, depending on the type of portrait, essentially from about 28 to 400 mm, on APS-C that would be about 17 to 250 mm, and for weddings I generally use 24/28 to about 135 mm, and occasionally 200 mm comes in handy. In terms of APS-C that is 15/18 to 85, up to 125 occasionally.



Combining all this, I'd suggest you'd get something from 10-400 mm to cover all of this, IOW, 10-22, 15-85, and 100-400. This means you could sell the 28-135, and that might just give you enough to get both of those lenses. I would keep the 50 F/1.4 for portraiture and low light shots.



Can one do better than this? Yes, but not within this budget. You will have very good lenses for what you'd want to achieve, in all of those areas, and from this you could build things up further.



However, as an alternative to the 15-85 you could consider the 17-55 F/2.8, or even a 24-70 F/2.8L, but in that case something else will likely have to give (other than the 15-85, which it would replace). Even on APS-C, 24-70 is a great zoom for wedding photography and portraiture, especially since you already have the 10-22 anyway.



I think you really need to consider very carefully what you find more important in the near future, wildlife or weddings, because here is the real budget breaker IMO. Good quality lenses for weddings and portraiture don't really overlap that well with good quality wildlife and birding lenses. As to the TS-E 17: personally I would really only consider that with a FF camera, as you lose out too much by using it with an APS-C camera IMO.



In short, trying to combine everything in your list, I'd opt for 10-22, 24-70 or 17-55 or 15-85, 100-400 and the 50 F/1.4, maybe with a few extension tubes thrown in. If you don't mind shooting with primes, you could also consider the 28 F/1.8 and 85 F/1.8 in combination with the 50 F/1.4 for wedding and portraiture work, for the mainstay of shots. In that case, the setup would become 10-22, 28, 50, 85, 100-400.



If you think you'd want to go for wedding/portraiture first, and wildlife/birding later, or vice versa, rather than trying to do all simultaneously, let us know, because recommendations would become rather different.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[popo]

My "two body" wildlife and nature setup is 15-85 + 100-400. That gives you the realistic range for pretty much anything you come across except macro, which could be a 3rd lens in that setup. For practical wildlife use, high quality longer zoom range lenses are more useful than short zoom range big aperture lenses here as you will often be fighting to get enough depth of field.



I don't do "people" photography myself so I couldn't help there.

[jjalbs]

Thank you for the replies. My plan was always to sell the 28-135 as when I bought the 7D there were only kits available due to inventory issues following the Earthquake. Replacing this with either the 15-85 or 17-55 was my plan. What does everyone think about the 2.8 on the 17-55 vs the 3.5-5.6 on the 15-85. My main priority right now is Landscapes and portraits.

[wim]

F/2.8 is great to have throughout the zoomrange for portraits, for landscapes this isn't really necessary. Generally one wants to stop down for landscapes, to get as much in focus as possible.



OTOH, you could also use the 50 F/1.4 for portraits, so it is a bit of a moot point, unless you shoot a lot in low light. However, I personally find that even F/2.8 often is too slow in that case, although IS compensates a lot for that.



You also need to consider that with portraits, if you plan to have faces sharp in focus from the tip of the nose to the ear lobes in head and shoulder shots, you generally need at least F/4 to achieve that. So, unless you plan to do that most of the time, it doesn't matter which lens you would choose. The 15-85 will give you more flexibility in zoom length, the 17-55 more flexibility in aperture.



Personally, I'd take aperture over FL in these cases. I do find that F/5.6 at the long end for a relatively short lens is a bit dim, and also obstructs me in the creativity that a larger aperture provides.



Furthermore, if you do plan on keeping the 10-22, I'd seriously consider the 24-70 F/2.8L. Slightly longer, therefore better for portraits then the 17-55, and the lower end is covered by the 10-22. The difference between 70 and 100 (100-400) is negligible IMO, as is the difference between 85 and 100.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[jjalbs]

Wim



Thanks I had originally thought of the 24-70 but wondered about the low end being to long even though I have the 10-22 (lens changes). If I go that route I can maybe stretch the budget a little and get a prime lens in there somewhere or satisfy the Long end for wildlife with one of the long zooms or primes. Do you have any suggestions on quality and or utility of 100-400 vs 400 5.6 or 70-200 f4.



thanks

[popo]

For wildlife, of those 3 the 100-400L will be the most flexible. The 70-200/4L aperture isn't significant in this application, plus the range is more limited even if you throw an extender into the mix. While the 400/5.6L will give you better quality at 400, you'll likely find the fixed focal length to be very limiting unless you have another body to hand. Possibly also consider the 70-300L if you like a more modern physical construction.

[wim]

[quote name='jjalbs' timestamp='1302815465' post='7649']

Wim



Thanks I had originally thought of the 24-70 but wondered about the low end being to long even though I have the 10-22 (lens changes). If I go that route I can maybe stretch the budget a little and get a prime lens in there somewhere or satisfy the Long end for wildlife with one of the long zooms or primes. Do you have any suggestions on quality and or utility of 100-400 vs 400 5.6 or 70-200 f4.



thanks

[/quote]

Since you have two bodies, that shouldn't really be a problem, if you ask me. Also, 24 mm on APS-C is a short standard lens, and personally I found I rarely had to go below that when shooting at parties, weddings etc., when I still had my APS-C cameras, except for group shots and the like.



You can also look at it in a different way, based on geometrical midpoint, especially as a zoom is often used as a prime which allows a little framing anyway. In that case a 24-70 becomes a 41 mm lens, with equal magnification factors from 24 to 41 as from 41 to 70. That means it would become a very short tele with extended framing abilities on an APS-C camera - an extremely useful lens for portraiture. That's really how to look at it, IMO. You could also look at teh 24-105 F/4 in that regard, which has a geometrical midpoint of exactly 50 mm, and hence is a true portrait zoom on APS-C. However, its bokeh is not as nice as that of the 24-70. Although I used it myself as a portrait zoom on APS-C, I found I preferred the 24-70 over it.



Changing lenses is what (d)slrs are built for, so I don't particularly think that that is a problem. As to "missing shots", as this is often meant when talking about having to switch or change lenses: the thing really is to be prepared and anticipate. There is no way anybody will ever to be able to take all shots of all interesting or worthwhile things happening, so when one is prepared for what could happen, and one accepts that occasionally something else does regardless, whatever lens is mounted, that doesn't really matter. I shoot mostly with primes, I only have 1 zoom left, the 100-400L, and I honestly do not miss them (and I did have quite a few).

As to 70-200, 400 and 100-400: the 70-200 is faster, aperture wise, and a little sharper than the 400 and 100-400L, which has to do mostly with that it is newer, shorter, and has a shorter zoom range factor. Above ~ 250 mm lenses do tend to get a little softer/less sharp, due to a lot of factors. This is a gradual thing which is unavoidable in optics, even with the more expensive stuff (although there generally is a very clear correlation with price and IQ/sharpness when it comes to long lenses). Having said that, the 70-200 F/4 IS is a bit sharper than the non-IS version, although the non-IS version beats it at close range (I mean using extension tubes here), where the IS one gets a little softer especially at the longer ends. The 400 is most likely a little sharper than the 100-400 at 400, but doesn't have IS or 100-399. Also, there are 100-400s about, which beat the 400. Then there is the zoom ability of the 100-400, which in its implementation makes it incredibly easy to zoom out to catch the object you want to photograph, and zoom in again to the detail you want. That is all a little harder with the 400 prime <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. If you only plan to do birding, the 400 is probably the way to go, if you want to do nature, wildlife, and even some macro, the 100-400 is the way to go. Also, the 100-400 is really quite good at (semi-)macro, something most people don't expect, and it beats the 70-200 F/4s at close range IME. Check my two pictures in the 100-400L lens review thread, [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/869-next-pz-lens-test-report-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is/page__p__7520#entry7520"]here[/url] <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



HTH, warm regards, Wim

[jjalbs]

Wim

Thanks for the thoughtfull reply, it was exactly what I was looking for. It gives me plenty to consider. I am strongly considering the 100-400 in addition to one of the shorter zooms or maybe even a good prime. Whats the best way to go about testing if I get a good copy.