Take it to the next level: what to buy (Canon)

[Trebaxus]

Dear all,

There is so much out there when it comes to lenses, it is a bit overwhelming to me.

I am an amateur photographer who loves to travel and occasionally makes a nice picture. I do this with my Canon EOS 7D body and a current set of objectives:

- Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 telemacro
- Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
- Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

As I moved past my period as a student and have a paying job right now, there is a bit more budget. Not unlimited, but if it is worth it I am willing to pay up for some good replacements of my current set.

I am planning to replace the Tamron 70-200 with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II. During travel I often experience too little time to get my tripod out before taking a (wildlife) picture. I would give away or sell off the old Tamron lense without IS (also the switch between M and AF zoom isn't working that well anymore, so it is up for repair anyway which might not be worth its current value).

I hardly use the 70-300 lense, so I am not going to replace that. I do however would like to add a more all-round landscape/city photography lense to my collection. So that I don't have to change lenses during the day. And I would like to shoot better landscape pictures.

I am thinking of acquiring:

- Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0 L IS USM for the landscape photography

And am thinking of either the Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM or the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L IS II USM as a standard lense to have on your body during a day in the city/bus.

What is your opinion? Are these wise additions? And isn't the 24-105 range too large to get good quality pictures over the whole range? The EF 24-70 however, doesn't have IS if I am correctly.

If you have got alternatives I would really appreciate your opinion and advice!

Many thanks!

 

[Derrel]

Sure, a 16-35 f/4 with IS is a nice lens, plenty wide for the 7D, and good,modern lens design. I think the 24-105-L was a good lens; apparently it's been upped to a Mark II design? SO, ought to be fine, although "some" people would question the effective focal lengths on APS-C. Still, I dislike a 24-70mm lens...just not enough telephoto at the top end.

HONESTLY though...I think the lenses you have right now would be better on an EOS 6D body...the 24, the 70-200, the 50mm, all would be better on the 6D. The 7D is, to my eye, lacking in image resolving power, being geared toward a lot of noise reduction at the expense of detail. I thinbk the 5D-III and 6D are better "imagers" than the 7D, and I think buying a used 5D-series or a used 6D and keeping your 24,50,and 70-200 would make HUGE sense if you just had the correct body to go with those essential lenses: a full-frame Canon body.

24-105 L was/is THE kit zoom of choice for the 5D/6D....it's got all you need when used on FF. Same with the 16-35, the 24, and the 50, and the 70-200.

Instead of replacing lenses, I think you replace the body, if you want to 'take it to the next level' as your post title states.

 

[beagle100]

Dear all,

There is so much out there when it comes to lenses, it is a bit overwhelming to me.

I am an amateur photographer who loves to travel and occasionally makes a nice picture. I do this with my Canon EOS 7D body and a current set of objectives:

- Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 telemacro
- Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
- Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

As I moved past my period as a student and have a paying job right now, there is a bit more budget. Not unlimited, but if it is worth it I am willing to pay up for some good replacements of my current set.

I am planning to replace the Tamron 70-200 with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II. During travel I often experience too little time to get my tripod out before taking a (wildlife) picture. I would give away or sell off the old Tamron lense without IS (also the switch between M and AF zoom isn't working that well anymore, so it is up for repair anyway which might not be worth its current value).

I hardly use the 70-300 lense, so I am not going to replace that. I do however would like to add a more all-round landscape/city photography lense to my collection. So that I don't have to change lenses during the day. And I would like to shoot better landscape pictures.

I am thinking of acquiring:

- Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0 L IS USM for the landscape photography

And am thinking of either the Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM or the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4.0 L IS II USM as a standard lense to have on your body during a day in the city/bus.

What is your opinion? Are these wise additions? And isn't the 24-105 range too large to get good quality pictures over the whole range? The EF 24-70 however, doesn't have IS if I am correctly.

If you have got alternatives I would really appreciate your opinion and advice!

Many thanks!

for $80 the refurbished 50mm 1.8 STM is a "wise" addition as well as the 70-200 2.8
I prefer the Canon 15-85 as a general walk-around on a crop model
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Trebaxus]

Thanks for your advise!

I am quite happy with my body right now and always find it a bit difficult of turning in something that works fine and I am the first owner of with something second hand.

Beagle100, could you elaborate a bit on how the 50mm 1.8 refurbished stm is a good addition to the 50mm 1.8 I currently have? What is the major difference?

Thanks!