Next purchase?

[lxapilot]

Hello all,
I've been reading this forum quite a bit, and I have to tell you that all the great information I've found has helped tremendously. I decided I wanted to venture out a little further into my photography hobby, and I'm hoping you guys can give me your opinions.

I currently have a 7D (10000 actuations), with a Canon 17-85, a Sigma 70-300 F/4.5, a 50mm F/1.8, and 580EX II. I'd like your advice on which would be the better option. A good portion of my pictures will be portrait, with a mixture of indoor and outdoor (think family pictures)...a good portion lower light. I'm really disappointed with the quality of almost all of my lenses. I've budgeted around $2K.

Option 1: Keep the 17-85, and get a 70-200 F/2.8L IS Mk II. I'd have the long range for candid outdoor photography with tack-sharp focus.

Option 2: Get rid of the 17-85, in exchange for a 24-70 F/2.8L Mk II. Since a larger number of my pictures will be in this range, get a great lens for indoors and close range, while sacrificing on the long range side (since my 70-300 is not a great lens.

Option 3: Get the 24-105 F/4L, and a 70-200 F/2.8L Mk I. Compromise...I get good lenses for each. I keep hearing that the Mk II 70-200 is such a better lens than the Mk I, makes me think I may not be happy with the focus of the Mk I.

Of course, there's always the option of selling my 7D and getting a 5D with an F/4L lens.

Thoughts?

 

[bleephotography]

Hello all,
I've been reading this forum quite a bit, and I have to tell you that all the great information I've found has helped tremendously. I decided I wanted to venture out a little further into my photography hobby, and I'm hoping you guys can give me your opinions.

I currently have a 7D (10000 actuations), with a Canon 17-85, a Sigma 70-300 F/4.5, and a 50mm F/1.8. I'd like your advice on which would be the better option. A good portion of my pictures will be portrait, with a mixture of indoor and outdoor (think family pictures)...a good portion lower light. I'm really disappointed with the quality of almost all of my lenses. I've budgeted around $2K.

Option 1: Keep the 17-85, and get a 70-200 F/2.8L IS Mk II. I'd have the long range for candid outdoor photography with tack-sharp focus.

Option 2: Get rid of the 17-85, in exchange for a 24-70 F/2.8L Mk II. Since a larger number of my pictures will be in this range, get a great lens for indoors and close range, while sacrificing on the long range side (since my 70-300 is not a great lens.

Option 3: Get the 24-105 F/4L, and a 70-200 F/2.8L Mk I. Compromise...I get good lenses for each. I keep hearing that the Mk II 70-200 is such a better lens than the Mk I, makes me think I may not be happy with the focus of the Mk I.

Of course, there's always the option of selling my 7D and getting a 5D with an F/4L lens.

Thoughts?

If you plan on sticking with APS-C, then I'd recommend picking up a 17-55 f/2.8 and a used 70-200 f/4 (or f/2.8 non-IS). The 24-70 isn't nearly as useful on crop as it is on FF; you'd likely find it is plenty long, but not quite wide enough. Also, with the upcoming release of the 70D, the resale value of your 7D might not be very good (honestly, I don't know), so moving up to FF might be out of your budget.

 

[Jim K]

I think since you have done 10,000 images with a 7D you may not be happy with the older AF of the 5D classic. If you are not doing candid shots such as kids ( you did not say so) and mean more formal portraits where the subject is posing for you, you will probably find the 5D classic OK. I'm not sure how much higher ISO you would be able to use over the 7Ds ISO 800 or so as I have never shot with one.

I'm still mulling over your lens choices but the 17-55 f/2.8 is a great crop lens and saves $1000+ over either of the Mk II L lenses.

 

[lxapilot]

I should have specified...I'm not thinking 5D classic. If I went to the 5D, I'd be inclined to spend a bit more and get a used 5D Mk II and the 24-105 and 70-200 F/4, or get the mk III with the 24-105. I've considered the 17-55, but don't really want another EF-S lens--even if I don't upgrade cameras right now, my next will definitely be a FF.

 

[bleephotography]

I should have specified...I'm not thinking 5D classic. If I went to the 5D, I'd be inclined to spend a bit more and get a used 5D Mk II and the 24-105 and 70-200 F/4, or get the mk III with the 24-105. I've considered the 17-55, but don't really want another EF-S lens--even if I don't upgrade cameras right now, my next will definitely be a FF.

In that case you'd have to decide whether you need the added benefits of the 5DIII (specifically, the much improved AF). If the 5DII's AF is satisfactory for your needs, then I'd suggest going with the 6D w/ 24-105 kit instead of the 5DII, because other than the better build quality, the 6D is the better overall camera for not much more. Then pick up a 70-200 (whichever one suits your budget).

Otherwise, get the 70-200 IS II now and endure your 17-85 until you have a little more cash to move to FF.

 

[SwissBear]

If you want a real low light improvement, then f/2.8 is not enough. I have 2 suggestions:
[list type=decimal]
[*]
Siggy 18-35 f/1.8 & Canon 85 f/1.8
The latter is a very impressing lens on a crop, the CA's can easily be corrected in post. The first one is probably the next lens I get, the reviews look VERY promising. If you stretch your budget a bit, also a 135L fits

[*]
6D & 24-105
Sell everything that doesnt work on FF and buy this kit.

[/list]

Assuming the same shutter speed, and max aperture, for example ISO of 400 on the 7D results in ISO 2000 on the 6D (i guess that the noise is more or less the same, maybe favs the 7D?), but then again the 6D is full frame and does better portraits or at least more blurred background.

 

[dgatwood]

If I were replacing a 17-85 and sticking with a crop body, assuming you need most of the zoom range (and can't, for example, shoot all your low-light shots with a 16-35), I'd either replace it with its newer, wider, lower-distortion replacement, the 15-85 or with a slightly more flexible carry-around lens like the 18-135, knowing that image quality might suffer a little bit in exchange for that longer zoom range. Both have newer, better stabilizers than the 17-85, and both are slightly faster as well. Neither of those things will result in perfect low-light photography by any stretch, but they'll certainly help.

Alternatively, if you're thinking about going full-frame, I third the 6D/24-105 suggestion. The full-frame sensor result in a full stop better noise figures, so you can crank up the ISO higher without the shot being hopelessly noisy. If you're doing a lot of wide shots, grab a 16-35.

 

[bholliman]

In that case you'd have to decide whether you need the added benefits of the 5DIII (specifically, the much improved AF). If the 5DII's AF is satisfactory for your needs, then I'd suggest going with the 6D w/ 24-105 kit instead of the 5DII, because other than the better build quality, the 6D is the better overall camera for not much more. Then pick up a 70-200 (whichever one suits your budget).

Otherwise, get the 70-200 IS II now and endure your 17-85 until you have a little more cash to move to FF.

+1

The 5D3 is a great camera, but you can get a 6D for about half the price if you don't need a super AF system. The 6D is a better camera than the 5D2 for just a little more money.

If you stick with your 7D the EF-S 17-55 lens is terrific and hold its resale value very well.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I used my 17-55 almost 90% of the time..... that was unitl i got the 70-200 2.8 IS II... it is a tough choice, but i would say keep your 17-85 and get the 70-200!