Hello my fellow canon rumor members. I would like some feedback. I'm torn between the Canon 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I shoot with a 7d mark ii and the focal lengths I like to use most are 16, 24, 35 and 50. Both lenses have IS and I'll be using which ever lens I get for both photo and video. I'll also be using the lens for general photos and street photography. Can you guys please help me make a choice?! I do plan on going full frame, probably when the 5d Mark 4 come out, so efs lenses are not an option.
I'm Torn Between...
- Thread starter ReggieABrown
- Start date
ReggieABrown said:
Once you get a full format camera, you will probably want both a standard zoom like the 24-70/2.8 and a UWA zoom like the 16-35/4. Of the 4 focal lengths you prefer, both lenses cover 3 of the 4. The answer to your question might be if you if you live without 16mm or 50mm easier. If it was me I'd choose the 16-35, but the 24-70 has a lot going for it as well.
Upvote
0
The 24-70 will be used a lot more on FF than a 16-35, plus you have already have a 11-16, so I'd opt for the 24-70. Plus crop sensors can use all the light they can get, so faster lenses are preferable.
If you do choose to go with the 16-35, then you should also consider picking up a fast 50 prime. Then both lenses will be able to migrate to FF, and you'll have a better lens for lower light environments.
If you do choose to go with the 16-35, then you should also consider picking up a fast 50 prime. Then both lenses will be able to migrate to FF, and you'll have a better lens for lower light environments.
Upvote
0
I had the Tamron 24-70 2.8. Nice lens but the zoom and focus are reversed from Canon. Got frustrating shooting fast when all my other lenses went the other way. Since you have a go-fast camera, I would take this into consideration if I were you. Plus it's a "normal" to short tele lens on a crop sensor, and I really want the 16-35, so I think that's what you should get. 
Seriously though, you won't go wrong with the EF-S 17-55 recommended above unless you must have a weather resistant lens. The 7dii is a forever sort of camera, so why not have a lens specific to it?
Seriously though, you won't go wrong with the EF-S 17-55 recommended above unless you must have a weather resistant lens. The 7dii is a forever sort of camera, so why not have a lens specific to it?
Upvote
0
FTb-n said:
This is the correct answer. If you do sell your 7D Mark II for a full-frame camera, then sell the 17-55 too and get a 24-70 or 24-105 for the full-frame camera. If you keep the 7D Mark II then decide if you want to keep or sell the 17-55.
Upvote
0
I recommend considering the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS if you are shooting mostly in the daytime and don't need extreme selective focus. It really is a good one-lens camera for decent-light walkabout and for landscape and medium close-up (at 85 end, 1:4 magnification, fine for many plant shots). I use it at the 15mm end a lot. Camera is a 60D. PS How do you like your 7D2? How big of an improvement is it compared to 60D, and do you shoot action or wildlife with it? I am thinking of upgrading from 60D, keeping my 400 f/5.6L for birding and 180 f/3.5L macro for shy critter (and poisonous critter) macro to use the crop advantage at both ends of the spectrum.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the responses guys!! I may have to consider the 17-55 efs. But spending $800+ for a lens, I would prefer one that I can use on both full and crop cameras.
About the 17-55 efs, is it true that it have a problem pulling dust inside the lens? And the IS system on the lens; how is it? Is is smooth or jerky?
About the 17-55 efs, is it true that it have a problem pulling dust inside the lens? And the IS system on the lens; how is it? Is is smooth or jerky?
Upvote
0
ReggieABrown said:
Do you need the f/2.8? If not, the 15-85 is great.
The 17-55 dust problems are over blown, and the IS is quite good on both lenses.
You could buy a used 17-55 and sell it later, probably for about what you paid for it.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
I love the 7d2! There's a big improvement with noise reduction at higher iso's, and the noise that does creep in looks very good (to me). It's sharper than the 60d, it have a lot more professional options to customize the camera to the way you prefer shooting, and the autofocus is amazing. But the thing I like the most is the size and build quality. I have HUGE hands and my hands would start cramping after a 30min - 1hr photo shoot with 60d. I haven't had that problem with the 7d2.
I've shot some wildlife, but not too much yet. I've taken a few shots of a baseball game. And the autofocus was a monster! Out of about 100 shots, about 3 were OOF, and I believe it was because of user error. Attached is a pic from that baseball game.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
I agree the dust wasn't an issue. Every lens gets dust inside the front element eventually. The front element on the 17-55 seems to magnify the dust. I opened mine up once so I know from experience! I wish I had left it alone!
That lens was magnificent. I loved it. So versatile and the IS was good for at least 3 stops. Focused really really fast! A perfect match on crop but especially matched nicely with a 7D2.
Build quality could be better though for the price but what you should do is just buy a used one in good condition. They can be found for a bargain now and all that dust scaremongery just makes it cheaper! (Annoying when you sell it though!)
Upvote
0
I should elaborate. I use a 17-55 on my 60D and 7D. I also have both the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-104 f4L IS for my 5D3. Of these three lenses, I still think the 17-55 is the best choice for the crop bodies in part for the focal range and partly for the IS with the faster aperture. As long as I hang on to a crop body, I'll hang on to this lens.
With a 7D2, I assume sports would be a subject matter. The 17-55 is fantastic with sports. I often used it to shoot volleyball from net-side where it was necessary to quickly aim at a player, focus, and shoot. The 17-55 locked on without issue. I think part of this is due to the faster lenses. Even with the two L lenses on the 5D3, the 24-105 sometimes misses where the 24-70 doesn't. If indoor sports is a concern, the 17-55 will not only help in low light, but the faster lens will make better use of your AF system on the 7D2.
That said, the 15-85 is the only other EF-S lens in this range that can touch the 17-55 for image quality.
As for the dust issue. Put a good clear filter on the lens and it isn't an issue. I use Hoya HD filters. If using Hoya, only use the HD or their new high end filters. B+W is another fine filter to consider.
Apparently early versions of the 17-55 had IS issues. I think those have long been resolved.
There is one quirk of this lens. When you zoom from wide to tele, you will feel extra resistance around the 24mm mark. This is normal. To be quite candid, this is most noticeable when you are playing with the lens and trying to figure out if you have a "good copy". Don't worry about it. I don't notice it when I shoot with the lens.
Check out Canon rebates. One may be ending tomorrow (Feb 28). I don't know if it covers this lens. Also consider Canon's refurb store. Often good prices and the lenses are thoroughly checked out by Canon (more so than new lenses off the line).
For what it's worth, my Dynamic Duo lenses for crop are the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. For FF, its the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Regardless the body, the 70-200 is my most used lens (for sports, events, candids, and portraits).
I hope this helps.
With a 7D2, I assume sports would be a subject matter. The 17-55 is fantastic with sports. I often used it to shoot volleyball from net-side where it was necessary to quickly aim at a player, focus, and shoot. The 17-55 locked on without issue. I think part of this is due to the faster lenses. Even with the two L lenses on the 5D3, the 24-105 sometimes misses where the 24-70 doesn't. If indoor sports is a concern, the 17-55 will not only help in low light, but the faster lens will make better use of your AF system on the 7D2.
That said, the 15-85 is the only other EF-S lens in this range that can touch the 17-55 for image quality.
As for the dust issue. Put a good clear filter on the lens and it isn't an issue. I use Hoya HD filters. If using Hoya, only use the HD or their new high end filters. B+W is another fine filter to consider.
Apparently early versions of the 17-55 had IS issues. I think those have long been resolved.
There is one quirk of this lens. When you zoom from wide to tele, you will feel extra resistance around the 24mm mark. This is normal. To be quite candid, this is most noticeable when you are playing with the lens and trying to figure out if you have a "good copy". Don't worry about it. I don't notice it when I shoot with the lens.
Check out Canon rebates. One may be ending tomorrow (Feb 28). I don't know if it covers this lens. Also consider Canon's refurb store. Often good prices and the lenses are thoroughly checked out by Canon (more so than new lenses off the line).
For what it's worth, my Dynamic Duo lenses for crop are the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. For FF, its the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Regardless the body, the 70-200 is my most used lens (for sports, events, candids, and portraits).
I hope this helps.
Upvote
0
Have you considered the Canon 16-35 f4 complimented by the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens. Both are EF (crop and full frame) and would cover all your focal lengths you needs.
The Canon 16-35 f4 is the best wide angle zoom lens on the market, bar none. The EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens is an absolute bargain ($125), that is ideal for street photography.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
