What lens for 7D EF-S or L

[Marine03]

I normally enjoy shooting landscape etc and want to get some lens, I currently have an XSI and want to upgrade to 7D or 7D2 or 70D depending on how much I can save up.. But figured I needed glass first. So for a crop sensor what do most people like to use? Since the wide L lenses are 28mm or equivalent to a 35mm EF-S I don't know if they will be wide enough. Any thoughts?

Thanks

 

[endfinity]

I, for one, uses EF-S 10-22mm on crop which is equivalent to 16-35mm on FF.

 

[marekjoz]

EF-S 17-55 2.8 might be more general purpose lens, so you could shot not only landscapes

 

[BlueMixWhite]

I would go for 10-20mm, 24-105 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L.

 

[awinphoto]

Once you catch the L fever you will never go back. That being said, i've gotten rave reviews on the 17-55 and some of the high priced ef-s lenses seem quite credible. Rule of thumb, the more you pay, the more you will get out of it. And whether a lens is "wide enough"... what is your definition of wide enough? Casual landscapes? Interior architecture? Do you want to make a bedroom look like a livingroom or do you want it to be just wide enough to do a casual group shot here or there? The 10-22 or 10-20 sigma or 11-16 tokina are very wide lenses and yield wide enough for just about the widest applications you could really need without going fisheye, but they are very wide and may not be what you are looking for. Try before you buy.

 

[Marine03]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

 

[marekjoz]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

They say it's the best EF-S lens. They say - if you don't switch to full frame camera like 5D2, you will be fully satisfied with the quality of this lens with the image quality comparable to L lens. "L" doesn't always means the best image quality. It's also built or weather sealing (sometimes). Professionalists using their lens work with them much frequent than hobbyist, so the glass has "harder" life. It has to be more resistant to treatment.

 

[awinphoto]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

From what many have said, it's an L quality optics in a cheap body. It will be a great lens as long as you're not rough and drop it. =)

 

[foobar]

May I throw in the 15-85? Widest standard-zoom for APS-C and tack sharp, especially at wider angles.

It's not f/2.8 but it's great as a general purpose outdoor lens.

 

[Marine03]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

They say it's the best EF-S lens. They say - if you don't switch to full frame camera like 5D2, you will be fully satisfied with the quality of this lens with the image quality comparable to L lens. "L" doesn't always means the best image quality. It's also built or weather sealing (sometimes). Professionalists using their lens work with them much frequent than hobbyist, so the glass has "harder" life. It has to be more resistant to treatment.

Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.

 

[awinphoto]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

They say it's the best EF-S lens. They say - if you don't switch to full frame camera like 5D2, you will be fully satisfied with the quality of this lens with the image quality comparable to L lens. "L" doesn't always means the best image quality. It's also built or weather sealing (sometimes). Professionalists using their lens work with them much frequent than hobbyist, so the glass has "harder" life. It has to be more resistant to treatment.

Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.

Once again you may have to define "real wide" because depending on your expectations, on a crop body, the 17-55 (17 on the wide end) may leave you wanting more. As I said before, in architecture shooting, the 17-55 on an average bedroom (not a master bed, but a spare bedroom), the 17-55 you may just get 2 walls in the frame. With the 10-22 or 10-20 or 11-16, you may get all 3 walls in the frame. You may not be shooting architecture, but just as a general perspective on what to expect with a crop body and those lenses.

 

[keithfullermusic]

I have an EF 20mm 2.8 from Canon (It has to be Canon's most underrated lens) - It is suuuuper shard compared to the 10-22 Canon and 11-16 Tokina - I know this because my good friends have them, and I borrow them on occasion. The only problem with the 20 is that it is not really wide enough for many applications.

I find that when I use the 10-22 I stay right around 10-12mm for most shots because thats the point of those wide lens. So, if wide is what you want, you will have to go with a non-L lens on any of those crop bodies. While the Tokina 11-16 has a higher aperture, the Canon 10-22 is the one I prefer because the images seem slightly sharper and just look a little better in general.

If you want, I can post samples from all of them so you can see for yourself.

 

[5dMkii]

With some of the recommendations coming in. the 17-55 2.8 sounds interesting but in the end do any EF-S lens stand up image wise to L glass?

They say it's the best EF-S lens. They say - if you don't switch to full frame camera like 5D2, you will be fully satisfied with the quality of this lens with the image quality comparable to L lens. "L" doesn't always means the best image quality. It's also built or weather sealing (sometimes). Professionalists using their lens work with them much frequent than hobbyist, so the glass has "harder" life. It has to be more resistant to treatment.

Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.

If that's the case (shooting REALLY wide) then get Sigma 8-16. We have it on our 7D and the results are spectacular. Little warmer tone but it's razor sharp.

 

[AvTvM]

Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera. and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.

do you currently have an EF-S 18-55 kit lens with your XSI?

If so, check it out @ 18mm ... and/or check the EXIFs of your pictures (there is free software to do this) to see what focal lengths you are mainly using ... and decide yourself whether 18mm focal length is "really wide" for you.

If the answer is NO - and you want to it even "wider", then look at ultrawideangle lenses, e.g. the EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 etc.

If 18mm is "wide enough" for you ... then the next question is: do you intend to frequently shoot moving subjects (people/children, animals/pets, vehicles, etc.) often also in rather low light (e.g. everything indoor)?

If yes, you may want to look at the EF-S 17-55 which offers a very useful focal range and a wider aperture (plus Image Stabilizer) on top. It is quite fat, quite heavy and not cheap, but performance-wise worth every cent in my opinion.

If you want somewhat more "reach" on the tele end [again, check with the kitlens @55mm] and if you plan to use the lens almost always in good lighting conditions (=outdoor, fair weather, flash, studio), then look at the EF-S 15-85 IS.

 

[barryjphoto]

10-22 UWA
17-55 Walk around
ANY 70-200 L

As for primes, the wider ones make decent normals on a crop, i.e. 35 f/2, noisy but sharp and the 85 1.8 is a great head and shoulders portrait lens.

 

[vlim]

I would say buy a used a 7D body and save some money for an L lens 17-40 f/4 L IS and a 70-200 f/4 L IS, you can even found them used and in great condition for a good price ! Lenses and your knowledge of how to use them are 2 most important things for making great pictures !

 

[bchernicoff]

I used the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 on my 7D and loved it. You might also consider the EF-S 15-85. It's supposed to be L sharp, but not as fast as the 17-55. You wouldn't need f/2.8 for landscapes though.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[awinphoto]

I would say buy a used a 7D body and save some money for an L lens 17-40 f/4 L IS and a 70-200 f/4 L IS, you can even found them used and in great condition for a good price ! Lenses and your knowledge of how to use them are 2 most important things for making great pictures !

At times I wish there was a 17-40 F4 L IS. =) But at this time there is only a 17-40 F4 L

 

[The Bad Duck]

If you plan on continue using APS-C cameras then you should consider EF-s lenses. I used to own a canon 10-22 and I really liked it better then my 17-40 /4 L on my 30D. And still, I liked it better as a superwide zoom on crop then I do with the 17-40 on my 5DII. But I had to upgrade camerabody and I don´t look back.

So, take a close look at 10-22, 17-55 /2.8 and 15-85. Non L? So what? Never mind that. The high quality ef-s lenses are great. Find out what focal lengths and f-stops you need, then take your pick.

For landscapes you probably step your lenses down to f/11 or f/16 or something and use a tripod so maximum apeture does not seem that important. Perhaps Samyang 14 /2.8 is interesting? Manual focus and manually setting apeture but for landscapes that should be easily manageable.

Another thing with ef-s lenses is they are often lighter, smaller and cheaper then EF lenses and that´s all good. Anyway the important thing is that there are great non-L lenses out there.

Take a look here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html
You will find that the ef-s 17-55 /2.8 is rated above the standard L zooms 24-70 and 24-105 even when price is no object. You will also find that only the canon 70-200 zooms and the sigma 300-800 are getting higher scores. The other lenses are primes and often L primes with crazy high pricetags.

Good luck and have fun building your system (and shooting with it!)

 

[ksuweh]

I own a 7D, 17-55, 35 L & 70-200 II L. The 17-55 is a GREAT lens! The optics are L quality & the body is rugged....just not L rugged. You definitely do get what you pay for! I have shot with my buddies Tokina 11-17 & it is extremely wide! I love that lens! The 17-55 is a GREAT general purpose lens & I think that it would make a good landscape lens, but the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens would probably be a better lens for what you have described your needs are. Plus, it is $300 cheaper. The L quality is VERY ADDICTING!! Lenses are the real investment! Canon might make the same version of a lens for 10 years or more, as long as you take care of them the resale value is always better on a lens than a body, bodies wear out & need replaced more often & the image you take can only be as good as the lens.