Which Canon L Lens for 7D Mark II?

[Kmccarthy]

Despite the fact that the OP has already wisely purchased a 5D3, I will add one more point to this thread. One of biggest problems with the 7D is that there are no good L zoom lenses for general purpose shooting. There is nothing equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L with high build quality and weather sealing. It's ironic because the 7D is very well built and weather sealed. The only L option is to get a wide angle zoom like the 16-35L or 17-40L, but neither provides the range of a 24-105 on FF.

If you want to use L glass, full frame is the way to go.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

These two list above points to the full frame 6D for sure. I guess my problem is that in light of the 7DmII and the 5DmIII I feel like I am getting robbed on features and the AF system just seems substandard at this level. Of course the price point for the 6D is right.

Don't be influenced by all the hype that surrounds a new camera. While the AF on the 7D is aimed at sports photographers, the AF of a FF camera tends to be more accurate, at least with the center point.

Most of the "L" lenses have the wrong focal lengths for a crop camera, and if you do get one that is right for a crop, it won't be right for FF, so thats a lose-lose situation.

Since you are considering working with someone else, get the right camera, the right lens (Refurb is great), and then get lighting. Photography is all about lighting. Using that flash on top of the 7D will almost guarantee poor quality photos. One flash is not going to do a good job either, two or three is much better. Then, there are the light modifiers. You should not spend all your $$ on camera and lens and ignore equally important accessories.

Consider how you are going to edit your photos, raw? Get one of the very good raw processors, you may get to edit 2500 images in a weeks time, so do some research.

 

[FTb-n]

One of biggest problems with the 7D is that there are no good L zoom lenses for general purpose shooting. There is nothing equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L with high build quality and weather sealing.

Technically true. There isn't an L-glass equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L for crop bodies. But, the 17-55 f2.8 is essentially L-glass without the weather sealing. True, the build quality of the 24-70 and the 24-105 feels better, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 17-55 f2.8. Put a good clear filter and you'll "seal" it from dust.

 

[Eldar]

The right lens for a 7DII is the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x

 

[ecka]

If you don't intend to upgrade to full frame within the foreseeable future then I'd recommend getting the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 as your workhorse lens for weddings and events. From my experience, Canon lenses tend to have a better resale value in the long run so if you do plan to transition to full frame you'll likely get more from the resale value compared to the Sigma.

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS v2 is a fantastic lens, but it's very heavy and I rarely use it on my 60D because of the crop factor when I shoot indoor events or weddings. Instead, I use it on my 5Dmk3. However, if you're shooting sports then the crop factor could be a benefit for the added reach.

+0.9

IMHO, Sigma 18-35/1.8ART is the best choice for crop at the moment. Without any BUT's or alternatives

One of biggest problems with the 7D is that there are no good L zoom lenses for general purpose shooting. There is nothing equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L with high build quality and weather sealing.

Technically true. There isn't an L-glass equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L for crop bodies. But, the 17-55 f2.8 is essentially L-glass without the weather sealing. True, the build quality of the 24-70 and the 24-105 feels better, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 17-55 f2.8. Put a good clear filter and you'll "seal" it from dust.

Well, essentially, 24-105L costs as much as 17-55/2.8, but on FF it is better in every way + 7D2 costs near as much as 6D (which, IMHO, is much better than APS-C), so, for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially . EF 24-70/2.8L'II is much more expensive than Sigma 18-35/1.8ART and its range is pretty awkward on APS-C, but on FF it is wider, longer and better (IQ, build, L) than Sigma 18-35/1.8ART on crop, so it may be worth it.

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford .

 

[TeT]

If we are talking 7DII then consider the EFS 15 85, the glass is good enough.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I am about about to upgrade from my Canon T2i to the 7D Mark II. I consider myself an enthusiast trying to make the move to pro. I decided that with my 7D Mark II purchase I would buy my first Canon L lens. The plan is to be an all purpose photographer doing weddings and other events.

Which of the following lenses would you get?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Thanks for your input.
or

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

If I were you I'd go for the 6D+24-70 (24-105) f4L IS+70-200 f4L IS. With the ISO capabilities of the 6D you'd be ok with this lenses and be able to cover the whole focal range. Other alternative to consider is the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 that sells really good, it's fast and reasonably priced.

 

[TeT]

I am about about to upgrade from my Canon T2i to the 7D Mark II. I consider myself an enthusiast trying to make the move to pro. I decided that with my 7D Mark II purchase I would buy my first Canon L lens. The plan is to be an all purpose photographer doing weddings and other events.

Which of the following lenses would you get?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Thanks for your input.
or

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

If I were you I'd go for the 6D+24-70 (24-105) f4L IS+70-200 f4L IS. With the ISO capabilities of the 6D you'd be ok with this lenses and be able to cover the whole focal range. Other alternative to consider is the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 that sells really good, it's fast and reasonably priced.

24 70's , not the 105's (either sigmas or canons) for the wedding gig... plenty sharp just too much wonky stuff around the edges. Also you are going to want to have f2.8 & f3.2 at times over having f4 as widest available...

 

[FTb-n]

... for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially . ...

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford .

+1.44, which is essential the FF equivalent to +0.9

For shooting crop events with crop bodies, such as the 7D or 7D2, the 17-55 2.8 is tough to beat (unless you go with primes). But, there's no question that a FF body with the 24-105L edges it out with better low light performance, longer reach, and slightly smaller DOF. This is exactly why I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 to the 5D3/24-105L. The OP will essentially enjoy his new 5D3/24-70 2.8II.

 

[ecka]

... for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially . ...

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford .

+1.44, which is essential the FF equivalent to +0.9

For shooting crop events with crop bodies, such as the 7D or 7D2, the 17-55 2.8 is tough to beat (unless you go with primes). But, there's no question that a FF body with the 24-105L edges it out with better low light performance, longer reach, and slightly smaller DOF. This is exactly why I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 to the 5D3/24-105L. The OP will essentially enjoy his new 5D3/24-70 2.8II.

Yes, that's the essence of the APS-C conspiracy .
I think Sigma 18-35/1.8ART beats 17-55/2.8 easily.

 

[Khalai]

... for event photography 6D + 24-105L wins, essentially . ...

I say go FF (6D or 5D3) with the best lens you can afford .

+1.44, which is essential the FF equivalent to +0.9

For shooting crop events with crop bodies, such as the 7D or 7D2, the 17-55 2.8 is tough to beat (unless you go with primes). But, there's no question that a FF body with the 24-105L edges it out with better low light performance, longer reach, and slightly smaller DOF. This is exactly why I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 to the 5D3/24-105L. The OP will essentially enjoy his new 5D3/24-70 2.8II.

Yes, that's the essence of the APS-C conspiracy .
I think Sigma 18-35/1.8ART beats 17-55/2.8 easily.

While 17-55/2.8 is not a slouch optically, I dislike the handling (cheap feel). But 35 vs 55 can be a significant difference for someone. I like the Sigma lens, but that range could be somewhat limiting sometimes. I like to think of it as a bag of 18/1.8, 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 primes for crop

 

[dash2k8]

Based on some real-world experience, if the OP is looking for a main lens for weddings and had to choose between these two, I'd prefer the 70-200 for the longer reach and therefore shallower DOF by zooming to 200mm. The 24-70mm range, for me personally, is not ideal on a APS-C body because it's not wide enough and not really all that long. A 16-35mm f4 would be more practical in a wedding environment. The 24-70 is too middle-of-the-road in terms of perspective IMO. I'm sure there are others out there who disagree; this is just my $0.02.

 

[Loswr]

I think Sigma 18-35/1.8ART beats 17-55/2.8 easily.

The 18-35 seems like a very nice lens, but not as useful a range. A general purpose zoom covers wide to short normal, 18-35 on APS-C is wide to normal.

24-70 II on FF will deliver much better IQ, at much higher cost.

 

[Helios68]

Hi,

For weddings I would choose a FF body for the following reasons:
-Best performance in high ISO/Low light conditions (Church, Party...)
-Better DOF

A good choice would be a 6D body (or even 2) with:
Body 1- EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
or EF 24-70 f/4L IS
or EF 24-105 f/4L IS
Body 2- EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

With these you could cover almost all your needs for weddings.

The extra reach of an APS-C is not necessary for weddings and even a disadvantage. All L lenses are also designed for FF bodies... But if you are still going in the APS-C setup you should have a look at the
-EF 16-35 f/2.8L
-EF 16-35 f/4L IS
-EF 17-40 f/4L

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I feel an envy of friends users of Nikon is 17-55mm F2.8 DX made ​​bulletproof. The optical quality is not great, but the mechanical strength makes me ashamed of Canon 17-55mm. I do not question the name "L", just give me the build quality similar to Nikon, and I will be happy.

 

[Kmccarthy]

One of biggest problems with the 7D is that there are no good L zoom lenses for general purpose shooting. There is nothing equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L with high build quality and weather sealing.

Technically true. There isn't an L-glass equivalent to a 24-105L or 24-70L for crop bodies. But, the 17-55 f2.8 is essentially L-glass without the weather sealing. True, the build quality of the 24-70 and the 24-105 feels better, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 17-55 f2.8. Put a good clear filter and you'll "seal" it from dust.

That is exactly my point. The 7D(I&II) is weather sealed, but Canon doesn't make a general purpose weather sealed lens to go with it. I live in a hot/humid part of the country. Every time I go outside in the summer, my lenses fog up. Since L lenses are weather sealed (with a clear filter), I can easily wipe them off. It would be a disaster if humidity got inside the lens.

No question the 17-55 is a great lens. It just doesn't match the build quality of the 7D.

This is one of the main reasons I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 to a 5DIII/24-105L.

 

[AvTvM]

I feel an envy of friends users of Nikon is 17-55mm F2.8 DX made ​​bulletproof. The optical quality is not great, but the mechanical strength makes me ashamed of Canon 17-55mm. I do not question the name "L", just give me the build quality similar to Nikon, and I will be happy.

interesting. I see it exactly the other way round. Nikon' huge and heavy 17-55 DX lens, with very mediocre optical performance, lack of IS and yet priced 50% more than Canon's 17-55 was one of the main reasons why I did not switch to Nikon from my 40D when the D300 came out (2009).

EF-S 17-55 has served me extremely well for about 8 years until now. No mechanical or sealing issues whatsoever, except a few dust specks inside. And I've been literally all sorts of places with it ... from social events to sports meetings, from shooting de-icing operations for an airport on a bitter cold day in February to some URBEXING safaris in incredibly hot, incredibly dusty abandoned places in the midst of summer. 17-55 went skiing with me in winter and mountaineering in summer ... no problem ever. Both, 7D plus 17-55 held up nicely. And the lens is still in very good shape. An exceptional item in terms of performance and value. AF fully up to snuff and IS as well. It has helped me a lot to capture brilliant, sharp images.

I also think the TO would be better served by a hi-ISO capable FF body with a 24-70 II on it. Except for the lack of IS it is the 17-55 of FF. ;-)

 

[Loswr]

I live in a hot/humid part of the country. Every time I go outside in the summer, my lenses fog up. Since L lenses are weather sealed (with a clear filter), I can easily wipe them off. It would be a disaster if humidity got inside the lens.

Hate to break it to you, but lenses with dust/water sealing are not hermetically sealed. 'Humidity' is a measure of the water present in a gaseous state in the air. The water vapor is in the air, and the air gets in your lens...therefore, the water vapor is getting in your lens...even a 'sealed' lens.

Your lenses fog up on the outside because of the temperature differental between the cooler surface of the lens and the warmer air, which causes the water vapor in the external air to condense (convert from a gaseous state to a liquid state) on the surfaces.

 

[spandau]

I have 2 crop body Canon DSLR's and the lenses I use the most are the 17-40 F4L, 70-200 F2.8L and the 400 F5.6L along with a 1.4 Teleconverter. I use a 10-18 Efs for ultra wide. For 99% of my shots these are the lenses I use.

 

[ecka]

I think Sigma 18-35/1.8ART beats 17-55/2.8 easily.

The 18-35 seems like a very nice lens, but not as useful a range. A general purpose zoom covers wide to short normal, 18-35 on APS-C is wide to normal.

24-70 II on FF will deliver much better IQ, at much higher cost.

You can't have all in one . For me, 18-35/1.8 has more useful aperture range and more impressive image quality. Quality over quantity, but that's just me.