Potential upgrade from 7D

[dcren123]

Hello everyone, recently I've been thinking about upgrading my 7D+15-85 to a 5DIII. The itch for upgrading has been nothing new, but recently I've found myself cringing at the images taken using the 7D+15-85 combo in low light when it is necessary to bump the ISO up to 3200/4000. I often times find myself wishing for a fast zoom lens/better high ISO performance when I'm taking pictures. Photography is a hobby for me, and I still hold a bit of doubt as to whether I should spend the money upgrading to a 5DIII since the 7D is an awesome camera, and the fact that I don't make money from photography.

I normally spend a lot of time looking up info and debating myself before I buy something, I spent a year "considering" before finally buying the 7D. The devil on my shoulder however, is pushing me to go for the 5DIII with a good lens. Thus for the past few weeks I've been browsing around and thinking about what focal lengths I would use more and which lenses I would most likely use. I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this. ;D

 

[lady]

It honestly depends. I think what you should do is order your lenses FIRST, then decide. You're using a really low quality lens. I hate my noise performance at F4 on the 17-40mm but the camera is a godsend when I'm using my 50mm @ f1.4.

Example:

If you have the money to do it, and you shoot a lot of low-light photography and not a lot of sport photography, then I honestly say go for it. Speaking as someone who is stubbornly refusing to part with her 7D and planning to add a 5D3 as a second camera, I honestly say if the 7D isn't doing what you want, upgrade. I would however suggest trying those lenses out first on your camera, because then you may decide you don't need to upgrade anymore!

The 16-35mm lens on the 5D3 creates fantastic pictures. Not sure about the Tamron as I am not a fan of tamron's quality.

 

[J.R.]

Why not go in for a 6D with the 24-105 kit lens while retaining the 7D as a second body? It could save you some $$$ to spend in lenses.

 

[Michael_pfh]

Or just get the 24 1.4L II - not ultrawide on 7D but the perfect tool for indoor low light shots without using a flash.

 

[rocketman]

Last week I pulled the trigger on upgrading to a 5Dmk3. I sold my first DSLR (EOS 450).

My 7D (not back-up, but camera for different purposes) is excellent for daylight, BIF, sports and wildlife, but I wanted FF IQ for landscapes and a bit more low light capability.

My 70-200f4 IS USM suites me fine on both camera's. For BIF I will stick to the 7D with converter (and cropfactor), however I am discovering the AF system on the 5Dmk3. AI servo case 6 is very tempting.

I bought the 16-35 to cover the wide angle for the 5Dmk3 (landscapes).

As I cannot make up my mind (i.e. find enough cash) on a Canon / Tamron 24-70/105 f2.8 / f4, I just upgraded my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.4. I will stick to that for a couple of months.

I intend to keep my 15-85 because while travelling on familytrips abroad (in summer) I want to take just one camera. The big pack will be the 7D with 10-22, 15-85 and 70-200 and the small pack is the 7D with just the 15-85.

The 5Dmk3 will only travel on dedicated phototrips. (I'll be more focused on my gear instead of my family.)

It all sums up to: I love my new 5Dmk3 and 16-35, but I too refuse to part with my 7D and 15-85.
I just wait for the Canon 24-70 2.8 to drop in price or to get IS and use my 50mm 1.4 and save some more money while waiting.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this. ;D

After much fighting (with myself), reading dozens of reviews, and breaking my head, a few months ago, I finally upgraded from 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS to 5D MK III & 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... so I can understand your predicament.
For me the upgrade has been truly worth it and would easily recommend the 5D MK III upgrade to any 7D owner.
Since you mostly shoot 15-35 on your 7D, a 24-70mm lens on a 5D MK III would perfectly fit in that category (15mm on 7D is equivalent to 24mm on a full frame like 5D/6D).
I have the 16-35 L II and it is an amazing lens ... but I mostly use 24-55mm reach on my 5D MK III (which is the same FOV as 15-35 on a 7D ).
Had the 24-70 L II till a couple of days ago (someone stole it), I must say that I did miss IS on 24-70 f/2.8 L II, so I ordered for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, should have it before the next weekend (actually I cannot afford to buy the 24-70 L II again ... and that coupled with my desire to have stabilization has led me to Tamron 24-70 VC).
If you've got the budget for 5D MK III, go for it along with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.
If you plan on sticking with 7D the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens that perfectly fits into your most used focal range (except for 15-16mm reach)... right now that lens is being sold for US$ 940 ... which I think is a very good deal.

 

[Loswr]

... recently I've found myself cringing at the images taken using the 7D+15-85 combo in low light when it is necessary to bump the ISO up to 3200/4000.

You're using a really low quality lens.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone describe the 15-85mm as a 'really low quality' lens. In fact, it's an excellent lens. A fast prime lets in more light, allowing lower ISO - but the tradeoff is shallow DoF, maybe too shallow for the image required.

 

[rpt]

When the light is bad, what aperture setting do you use? Do you need to go below the 3.5/5.6 of your 15-85? If so, try glass first. Like someone said earlier, if you have the dough, go for the 5D3. You can shoot at 12.8K ISO and get decent pictures.

 

[sagittariansrock]

when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm.

If I understand correctly, considering that you used the 15-35mm and 70-85mm ranges more on the 7D, then you are looking at 24-56mm and 112-136mm ranges on the 5DIII. So, I think you need a 24-XX lens more than a 16-35 on a FF.

Like someone said earlier, if you have the dough, go for the 5D3. You can shoot at 12.8K ISO and get decent pictures.

+1. No-brainer if you have the dough...

 

[brad-man]

... recently I've found myself cringing at the images taken using the 7D+15-85 combo in low light when it is necessary to bump the ISO up to 3200/4000.

You're using a really low quality lens.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone describe the 15-85mm as a 'really low quality' lens. In fact, it's an excellent lens. A fast prime lets in more light, allowing lower ISO - but the tradeoff is shallow DoF, maybe too shallow for the image required.

+1 The 15-85 is an awesome "single lens solution." You need higher ISO or a flash for indoor use. That being said, the 24-70 Tamron is a truly excellent indoor lens on a full frame camera.

 

[GuyF]

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens?

I often use the 70-200 f4 IS as my walk-around lens with the 5D3. Great results (as long as f4 isn't a problem for you) and not so heavy that I can't carry it by hand all afternoon.

 

[robbymack]

sounds like you really don't want to spend the money to upgrade, but feel you would benefit from better iso performance etc, which is totally understandable. Before you make a switch rent a 17-55 2.8 for a week or two and see how you get along with that especially since you indicate the 7d is an "awesome" camera (which it is). the 17-55 is faster than your current lens so you could save a stop or two in iso depending on the situation, maybe also rent a good fast prime like a 50 1.4 and see how those work. And if that doesn't float your boat by all means buy a 5diii, although take a hard look at the 6d. Honestly unless you are going to make the most out of the 5diii AF system the 6d is by and large the same camera just costs a bit less.

 

[jdramirez]

The only issue I see is that when you considering the crop factor of 1.6 the 15-35 is 24mm to 56mm. And on a full frame camera, the 16-35 will actually be 16-35mm. So you might want to look at one in person to make sure that your desired focal length is what you expect. I'm not saying it will be TOO wide, but it might be.

as for the 70-85 range... that is 112mm to 136mm on a full frame... and I really don't think you have those covered in your lens options...

 

[jdramirez]

I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this. ;D

After much fighting (with myself), reading dozens of reviews, and breaking my head, a few months ago, I finally upgraded from 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS to 5D MK III & 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... so I can understand your predicament.
For me the upgrade has been truly worth it and would easily recommend the 5D MK III upgrade to any 7D owner.
Since you mostly shoot 15-35 on your 7D, a 24-70mm lens on a 5D MK III would perfectly fit in that category (15mm on 7D is equivalent to 24mm on a full frame like 5D/6D).
I have the 16-35 L II and it is an amazing lens ... but I mostly use 24-55mm reach on my 5D MK III (which is the same FOV as 15-35 on a 7D ).
Had the 24-70 L II till a couple of days ago (someone stole it), I must say that I did miss IS on 24-70 f/2.8 L II, so I ordered for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, should have it before the next weekend (actually I cannot afford to buy the 24-70 L II again ... and that coupled with my desire to have stabilization has led me to Tamron 24-70 VC).
If you've got the budget for 5D MK III, go for it along with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.
If you plan on sticking with 7D the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens that perfectly fits into your most used focal range (except for 15-16mm reach)... right now that lens is being sold for US$ 940 ... which I think is a very good deal.

I pay 45 bucks a year for about $5000 of coverage from accidental damage and theft from my insurance company. It is worth getting obviously for situations like yours.

 

[Mantanuska]

The only issue I see is that when you considering the crop factor of 1.6 the 15-35 is 24mm to 56mm. And on a full frame camera, the 16-35 will actually be 16-35mm. So you might want to look at one in person to make sure that your desired focal length is what you expect. I'm not saying it will be TOO wide, but it might be.

^^ what he said. You said you find yourself shooting at the 15-35mm range on your 7d, so you would want the 16-35mm for a 5D, but that would actually be 24-26mm on full frame. You can save yourself some money and just get a 24-105mm to start off if you don't think you would need to get any wider than the 15-85mm you are using now.

 

[dcren123]

I don't really focus on specific types of photography, I shoot whatever I find interesting or makes me happy. As for using 15-35mm a lot when shooting with a 15-85, it's because it only goes to 15mm on the wide end. There are many times I find myself wishing I had a lens that was wider than 24mm, but I'm not exactly sure how often I'll go that wide because I just make due with what I have. I think the 15-85 is a fine lens, and infinitely useful as a travel lens aside from its slower speed. One thing that irked me was the silver ring... which I recently found to be a sticker and had begun peeling off on my lens. I also used to use 70-200 as a walk around lens on my 7D. I love the shots I get and I find it more satisfying to use than the 15-85, albeit I've changed my walk around lens to the voigtlander 40mm f2 because its just so compact and still quite versatile on the 7D despite it being a short tele when used with an APSC. However its not the best lens to have around in many cases, especially in low light. Even with focus confirmation I often have to use live view to make sure my shots are in focus when shooting wide open. Therefore I use it when I can take my time to manually focus and get clear shots.

When the light is bad, I tend to shoot wide open with the 15-85, but in low light situations 15-85 just doesn't cut it as the increased ISO on the 7D really causes the picture quality to drop(I can still accept 1600ISO... albeit a bit grudgingly, and above that I would start balking). I've contemplated on just getting new glass, but the 17-55 f2.8 doesn't really appeal to me that much, and the L series lenses works better with FF in most cases. I probably could get a prime or two, but I'd prefer more versatility with a zoom lens. Thus the reason I'm considering the 5DIII with either the 16-35L or Tamron 24-70. I didn't consider the 24-105 as I'd rather have a faster lens for times when I do need the larger aperture settings, instead of lamenting like I do with the 15-85 at f5.6 when zoomed to 85mm lol.

I have telephoto covered with the 70-200 f4L IS and is thus the reason I thought of forgoing a general purpose zoom for the 16-35mm.

Reinzphotoz I'm basically in a similar predicament as you were, but the wider-than-24mm focal length of the 16-35 appeals to me as much as the versatility of the 24-70, and thus my dilemma with choosing a lens. Let me know what you think of the Tamron 24-70 VC once you get it ;-)

I have enough dough to buy the 5DIII, so I probably won't think about getting the 6D since the AF system of the 5DIII interests me the most. I'll most likely also sell the 7D to help fund the purchase, since I really don't have a need for two cameras and would probably see the 7D grounded. I think it'd be better to let someone else use and enjoy the 7D as I did for the past 2 or so years. I'm still considering as of now, and am holding off to see whether the 5DIII price will drop a bit more where I live (currently at 2730 USD if converted with today's currency rates)

P.S. it's not that I don't want to spend the money, it's more like trying to find the best possible solution to my dilemma and not really wanting to part with my 7D that much :
As for the 6D... I like the 5DIII better(much better)~ enough said
P.P.S. I'm fully aware that the 16-35mm on FF isn't equal to the 15-35mm on APSC, it's just that I was considering trading off the 35~50mm range for 16~24mm ultra-wide angle. ;D

 

[jdramirez]

Makes sense. And I usually assume someone interested in a 5dmkii knows about the crop factor issue, but since it wasn't mentioned... Personally, I'm quite fond of primes... and I know they aren't as flexible, but I'm blown away by the results more often than I'm blown away by the zooms I've owned (18-55mm IS, 70-300, 75-300, 55-250, 70-200mm (f/4L and f/2.8L USM) and even the 24-105 I have.

 

[Jim K]

When you are looking at prices for the 5D3 body check out the Kit price with the 24-105. Recently one of the big name stores was selling the kit for about $550 more than the body only. At that price I would consider adding the 24-105 to fill between the 16-40 and your 70-200.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

... recently I've found myself cringing at the images taken using the 7D+15-85 combo in low light when it is necessary to bump the ISO up to 3200/4000.

You're using a really low quality lens.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone describe the 15-85mm as a 'really low quality' lens. In fact, it's an excellent lens. A fast prime lets in more light, allowing lower ISO - but the tradeoff is shallow DoF, maybe too shallow for the image required.

+1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this. ;D

After much fighting (with myself), reading dozens of reviews, and breaking my head, a few months ago, I finally upgraded from 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS to 5D MK III & 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... so I can understand your predicament.
For me the upgrade has been truly worth it and would easily recommend the 5D MK III upgrade to any 7D owner.
Since you mostly shoot 15-35 on your 7D, a 24-70mm lens on a 5D MK III would perfectly fit in that category (15mm on 7D is equivalent to 24mm on a full frame like 5D/6D).
I have the 16-35 L II and it is an amazing lens ... but I mostly use 24-55mm reach on my 5D MK III (which is the same FOV as 15-35 on a 7D ).
Had the 24-70 L II till a couple of days ago (someone stole it), I must say that I did miss IS on 24-70 f/2.8 L II, so I ordered for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, should have it before the next weekend (actually I cannot afford to buy the 24-70 L II again ... and that coupled with my desire to have stabilization has led me to Tamron 24-70 VC).
If you've got the budget for 5D MK III, go for it along with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.
If you plan on sticking with 7D the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens that perfectly fits into your most used focal range (except for 15-16mm reach)... right now that lens is being sold for US$ 940 ... which I think is a very good deal.

I pay 45 bucks a year for about $5000 of coverage from accidental damage and theft from my insurance company. It is worth getting obviously for situations like yours.

Oh, how I wish I could insure all my gear ... Unfortunately, where I live, they do not provide insurance for lenses.