Advice on purchasing a new APS-C body

[killswitch]

Get a room, you two!      Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass.  Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2?  A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well.  Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

[neuroanatomist]

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

For the 70-200 L zooms, the f/4L IS has a very slight IQ edge, not something you'd notice in real-world shots. So, it comes down to the obvious - give up a stop of light for IS and a smaller/lighter lens, or get f/2.8. If you're shooting mainly action in low light, you'll want f/2.8. Else, I think the f/4L IS version is a better choice.

For the non-L telezooms, the EF-S 55-250mm is substantially sharper than the EF 70-300mm IS, and cheaper, too.  If you're looking at the 70-300 non-L, for not much more cost I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS instead. 

[koolman]

Get a room, you two!      Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass.  Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2?  A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well.  Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

Hi Kill,

I would go for the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Its light, very sharp, and simply fun to use. The 2.8 version is much heavier, and you might find not useful with no IS. The IS version mark 2, which is superb, will cost you 2.5 k and is probably a huge overkill.

[gmrza]

Get a room, you two!      Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass.  Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2?  A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well.  Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

Hi Kill,

I would go for the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Its light, very sharp, and simply fun to use. The 2.8 version is much heavier, and you might find not useful with no IS. The IS version mark 2, which is superb, will cost you 2.5 k and is probably a huge overkill.

Don't underestimate the weight factor.  My wife has just finished a week of shooting mainly with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, and she actually has stiff shoulders.  Thing was she needed f/2.8, otherwise the f/4L IS would have done.  Apart from the factor of how tiring it is working for hours with a 1.5kg lens, especially handheld, you need to carry the thing around with you in your bag.  If I just want a 70-200 that I might use, I'll pack the f/4.  You need to think about whether you actually have to be able to open up to f/2.8.  If you are shooting events for a living, yes, if you are having fun it is less likely that you need 1.5kg of metal and glass.

[afira]

Don't underestimate the weight factor.  My wife has just finished a week of shooting mainly with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, and she actually has stiff shoulders.  Thing was she needed f/2.8, otherwise the f/4L IS would have done.  Apart from the factor of how tiring it is working for hours with a 1.5kg lens, especially handheld, you need to carry the thing around with you in your bag.  If I just want a 70-200 that I might use, I'll pack the f/4.  You need to think about whether you actually have to be able to open up to f/2.8.  If you are shooting events for a living, yes, if you are having fun it is less likely that you need 1.5kg of metal and glass.

The above. Six hours a day by two days this weekend at a horse show and I wanted to fall over and die. I was using my 450D without a flash and the weight was still a killer. F/4 for general walk around usage is typically more than sufficient.

I don't think Aaron78 should discount the EF-S set straight away, if it makes you feel any better, you can purchase a 10-22 EF-S brand new in the US for $750 and resell them for $800 in Australia used with a $20 hood. Go figure. Obviously, if you want the prime for that wide range, then that complicates things and makes the suggestions moot. Personally, I can't see the benefit of having a wide prime for an APS-C, but that's only because I can never seem to have a wide enough lens.

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250. Do you need the range? Can you fork over the extra for the L version? Do you have something to cover that 55-114 range on an APS-C? My pick would be the 70-300L, the 55-250 next, and then a 70-300, but I don't think you're covering the same range there.

[elflord]

The above. Six hours a day by two days this weekend at a horse show and I wanted to fall over and die. I was using my 450D without a flash and the weight was still a killer. F/4 for general walk around usage is typically more than sufficient.

I don't think Aaron78 should discount the EF-S set straight away, if it makes you feel any better, you can purchase a 10-22 EF-S brand new in the US for $750 and resell them for $800 in Australia used with a $20 hood. Go figure. Obviously, if you want the prime for that wide range, then that complicates things and makes the suggestions moot. Personally, I can't see the benefit of having a wide prime for an APS-C, but that's only because I can never seem to have a wide enough lens.

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

[afira]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C...  Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

[neuroanatomist]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C...  Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

We are talking about APS-C, but so what?  I suspect you are suffering from a (rather common) misconception, that EF-S lenses have a focal length that is somehow 'adjusted' for an APS-C sensor.  That is not the case.  Focal length, by definition, is the physical distance from the rear nodal point of a lens to the image plane.  In other words, a lens marked 55-250mm has a focal length of 55-250mm, and a lens marked 70-300mm has a focal length of 70-300mm (ignoring focus breathing) - regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens, or even whether there is a camera there at all.  Focal length is focal length - it's an intrinsic property of a lens.  Canon made a lens with focal lengths of 55-250mm, they didn't make a lens with focal lengths of 34-156mm then lie and print 55-250mm on the barrel...

Yes, an EF-S lens will only mount on an APS-C sensor, but that doesn't affect the focal length.  If you want to compare fields of view, either use no correction or 1.6x, but you have to apply it to both lenses.  So, you can say 55-250mm vs. 70-300mm, or if you want to compare the full frame equivalents, as elflord stated, a 55-250mm on APS-C will produce a field of view equivalent to a hypothetical 88-400mm lens on FF, just as a 70-300mm on APS-C is equivalent to 112-480mm on FF.  To repeat, you apply the crop factor to all lenses, not just to EF lenses mounted on APS-C bodies. 

Are they different?  Yes - by 24mm on the wide end and 80mm on the long end, but not, as you seem to be suggesting, by more than that (e.g. you mentioned the difference between 55mm and 114mm, but no, it's between 88mm and 114mm, and 400mm to 480mm on the other end, not 250mm to 480mm).  Different - but not so different after all, in terms of focal length, at least.

[killswitch]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C...  Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

We are talking about APS-C, but so what?  I suspect you are suffering from a (rather common) misconception, that EF-S lenses have a focal length that is somehow 'adjusted' for an APS-C sensor.  That is not the case.  Focal length, by definition, is the physical distance from the rear nodal point of a lens to the image plane.  In other words, a lens marked 55-250mm has a focal length of 55-250mm, and a lens marked 70-300mm has a focal length of 70-300mm (ignoring focus breathing) - regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens, or even whether there is a camera there at all.  Focal length is focal length - it's an intrinsic property of a lens.  Canon made a lens with focal lengths of 55-250mm, they didn't make a lens with focal lengths of 34-156mm then lie and print 55-250mm on the barrel...

Yes, an EF-S lens will only mount on an APS-C sensor, but that doesn't affect the focal length.  If you want to compare fields of view, either use no correction or 1.6x, but you have to apply it to both lenses.  So, you can say 55-250mm vs. 70-300mm, or if you want to compare the full frame equivalents, as elflord stated, a 55-250mm on APS-C will produce a field of view equivalent to a hypothetical 88-400mm lens on FF, just as a 70-300mm on APS-C is equivalent to 112-480mm on FF.  To repeat, you apply the crop factor to all lenses, not just to EF lenses mounted on APS-C bodies. 

Are they different?  Yes - by 24mm on the wide end and 80mm on the long end, but not, as you seem to be suggesting, by more than that (e.g. you mentioned the difference between 55mm and 114mm, but no, it's between 88mm and 114mm, and 400mm to 480mm on the other end, not 250mm to 480mm).  Different - but not so different after all, in terms of focal length, at least.

Thanks to everyone in this thread for their valuable insights on the subject matter. I lost myself there for a bit regarding the focal length stuff. I currently have these 3 lens, and use the 60D body:

1) 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina
2) 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 EF-S Canon
3) 50mm f1.8 II EF Canon

So, if end up getting lets say the 70-200 f4L IS, I just have a small overlap of focal length (70 to 85 mm) with the 15-85 right? Just wanted to clarify. As far as I knew, focal lengths written on both EF and EF-S lenses are true lengths in itself regardless you put them on a cropped or a full frame body. Its just that the crop factor(multiplier) comes into play when these lens are put in APS-C bodies? Meaning, e.g the 50mm prime lens in APS-C is truly giving me a virtual 80mm length (1.6 x 50mm) feel. The 15-85mm on a cropped body is essentially giving me a length of 24-136mm, right? Due to the crop, essentially they appear to be zoomed in by a factor 1.6 times? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this was the conception I had and I could be wrong.

I am inching towards the 70-200 f4L IS, mainly due to the IS  feature. Nothing is more disappointing than a blurred picture due to camera shake. However, I will miss the background blur quality you would get from a 2.8 aperture. Any thought on that? How much difference is the blur quality between these two lens?

[neuroanatomist]

So, if end up getting lets say the 70-200 f4L IS, I just have a small overlap of focal length (70 to 85 mm) with the 15-85 right? Just wanted to clarify.

Correct. 

As far as I knew, focal lengths written on both EF and EF-S lenses are true lengths in itself regardless you put them on a cropped or a full frame body. Its just that the crop factor(multiplier) comes into play when these lens are put in APS-C bodies? Meaning, e.g the 50mm prime lens in APS-C is truly giving me a virtual 80mm length (1.6 x 50mm) feel. The 15-85mm on a cropped body is essentially giving me a length of 24-136mm, right? Due to the crop, essentially they appear to be zoomed in by a factor 1.6 times? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this was the conception I had and I could be wrong.

You are absolutely correct.  It's afira who seems to have sown some unfortunate confusion in this thread. 

I am inching towards the 70-200 f4L IS, mainly due to the IS  feature. Nothing is more disappointing than a blurred picture due to camera shake. However, I will miss the background blur quality you would get from a 2.8 aperture. Any thought on that? How much difference is the blur quality between these two lens?

Blur quality (aka bokeh) is similar between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  Blur quantity is obviously going to be less with the f/4 lens.  Still, if you tightly frame your subject at 200mm f/4, you can get a decent amount of OOF blur.

The IS is very nice to have in the 70-200mm range, especially on an APS-C body.  Shooting people usually requires ~1/60 s (to freeze the involuntary subject motion that can reduce sharpness even in a person holding still).  With no IS, camera shake will reduce the frequency of sharp shots starting at 1/100 s at 70mm and 1/320 s at 200mm - thus, the 3 stops of IS will definitely help, especially at the long end.  The main reason to get the 70-200/2.8 non-IS would be if you were shooting sports and would routinely be at much higher shutter speeds anyway.  But iverall, the 70-200/4 IS is a more versatile lens.  The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II gives you the best of both worlds - f/2.8 and IS - as long as you can handle the weight/size increase and afford to pay twice as much.

[Jedifarce]

I am inching towards the 70-200 f4L IS, mainly due to the IS  feature. Nothing is more disappointing than a blurred picture due to camera shake. However, I will miss the background blur quality you would get from a 2.8 aperture. Any thought on that? How much difference is the blur quality between these two lens?

If it's concerning filming, I'm not sure you'd be able to differentiate between the two in video mode unless someone told you. Downside, pulling focus would be a lot harder with a 2.8 than with a F/4 on a moving subject, but you would gain that additional F/stop for lower light levels. An F/4 lens really struggles in low light.

[Jedifarce]

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS.

If you're going to do film, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you bought an L lens without IS.

[Jedifarce]

Don't underestimate the weight factor.  My wife has just finished a week of shooting mainly with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, and she actually has stiff shoulders.  Thing was she needed f/2.8, otherwise the f/4L IS would have done.  Apart from the factor of how tiring it is working for hours with a 1.5kg lens, especially handheld, you need to carry the thing around with you in your bag.  If I just want a 70-200 that I might use, I'll pack the f/4.  You need to think about whether you actually have to be able to open up to f/2.8.  If you are shooting events for a living, yes, if you are having fun it is less likely that you need 1.5kg of metal and glass.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is very nice. How heavy do you suppose that new 200-400mm F/4 L IS USM will be? I can't wait til that thing comes out.