Upgrading Soon

[vtf]

I am purchasing a Canon 60d body. I have done the comparisons to the 7d, 50d along with the T3i and the 60d seems to be the one that fits my needs the best.
Sorry no Nikons, just ain't goin to happen!
For this camera I want 2 lenses, they must be EF lenses so if I unpgrade further they're still usable with a full frame. Also usable in portrait work. So far the choices I am considering are:
1. EF 70-200mm / F 2.8 / USM L Canon Lens
This lens without the IS to help with cost.
2. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
These lenses have excellent reviews and are considered very sharp lenses.

In your opinion do these compliment each other and if not what would be your lens choice. Keep in mind I do want to keep overall price of the 2 under $2000.

Thanx All.

 

[JasonLambert]

I own the IS version of the 70-200 and have to say that it is worth every penny. I am able to hand hold at 200mm @ 1/60th and get a real sharp image. I was lucky enough to use both before making my purchase and was so glad I went IS. If your not using the lens in low light like I am and can get the faster shutter speeds then ya... save yourself the grand and get a nice second lens.

If you do a lot of portraiture and you want a great lens check out the 85 1.2L. A great prime that will blow the 70-200L out of the water. I know... apples and oranges... but for portrait work this is where I would spend my money. (it's on my list)

Again, not a fan of the 4.0 aperture... You can get 2.8 in the 24-70L or the 16-35L for about double the price of the 17-40L. Better to save and get what's good than to spend on what will do.

Just a little food for thought... Hope it helps.

 

[vtf]

I own the IS version of the 70-200 and have to say that it is worth every penny. I am able to hand hold at 200mm @ 1/60th and get a real sharp image. I was lucky enough to use both before making my purchase and was so glad I went IS. If your not using the lens in low light like I am and can get the faster shutter speeds then ya... save yourself the grand and get a nice second lens.

If you do a lot of portraiture and you want a great lens check out the 85 1.2L. A great prime that will blow the 70-200L out of the water. I know... apples and oranges... but for portrait work this is where I would spend my money. (it's on my list)

Again, not a fan of the 4.0 aperture... You can get 2.8 in the 24-70L or the 16-35L for about double the price of the 17-40L. Better to save and get what's good than to spend on what will do.

Just a little food for thought... Hope it helps.

Thanks for your imput. I am pretty well set on the 70-200 but looking for a quality EF lens to help in tight quarters that the 70-200 can't.
I am not 100% set and can change if compelling evidence shows me other lenses that compliment each other for under 2 grand.
I'll look into the 16-35 and the 2.8 17-40.

 

[Ryan L]

I am a huge fan of the 85mm 1.2, but you will have nothing left to buy any other lens. Considered the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS? It can be had for less than a grand, nice range to cover portraits on a crop body, Then you could even go with Tamron or Sigma and get a coupe F2.8 lenses with the remaining 1 grand.

 

[analog.universe]

Are you set on zoom? Since you're not looking at the IS version, instead of the 70-200, I'd go for an 85mm 1.8, and a 200mm 2.8L (or the 135mm 2.0L, depending on how much reach you want).

Just an idea..... I'm a bit of a sucker for fast primes though

 

[vtf]

Are you set on zoom? Since you're not looking at the IS version, instead of the 70-200, I'd go for an 85mm 1.8, and a 200mm 2.8L (or the 135mm 2.0L, depending on how much reach you want).

Just an idea..... I'm a bit of a sucker for fast primes though

My interest will be portraits but some flexibility to shoot maybe sports or wildlife is why I am leaning on the 70-200 at 2.8. The non-IS can be had for around a grand on Ebay.
The 17-40 would be used where space may be an issue although I am going by reviews and at $899 it seemed to get great reviews for the price.
I do have a 50mm 1.8 to cover the gap between the two lenses.
I am looking into the 35mm f1.2 and 85mm 1.8, both are looking good on price. If you have one how is the image quality compared to the 50mm 1.8?
Would it be worth to get the 35mm and 85mm in place of the 17-40?

 

[analog.universe]

I've never shot the 50 1.8, but the 85 really is an amazing lens for the price. I didn't realize the 70-200 was going that cheap used, that makes it a little more attractive. On the wide end I'm not sure what I would do in your case. The 17-40 is a nice range with everything else you're looking at. Do you plan on shooting 17 much? Because I think you'd really miss it if you only had the 35. I ended up doing an 11-16 2.8 and a 28 1.8 for my wide end (which only comes out like ~200 more than the 17-40 actually)

edit: that being said, I wouldn't recommend the 28. It's a fine lens, but it doesn't really blow me away, hasn't got very much character for the price...

 

[vtf]

I am a huge fan of the 85mm 1.2, but you will have nothing left to buy any other lens. Considered the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS? It can be had for less than a grand, nice range to cover portraits on a crop body, Then you could even go with Tamron or Sigma and get a coupe F2.8 lenses with the remaining 1 grand.

hmmmm....24-105mm, the reviews seem great, this might be a good option. I'll keep this in mind.
I guess what I'm looking for is the quality of image in the equation along with versatility and price, these are all very good lenses.
I didn't realize how cappy my 75-300 was until I got my 50mm and I don't want to go down that road ever again.

 

[vtf]

I've never shot the 50 1.8, but the 85 really is an amazing lens for the price. I didn't realize the 70-200 was going that cheap used, that makes it a little more attractive. On the wide end I'm not sure what I would do in your case. The 17-40 is a nice range with everything else you're looking at. Do you plan on shooting 17 much? Because I think you'd really miss it if you only had the 35. I ended up doing an 11-16 2.8 and a 28 1.8 for my wide end (which only comes out like ~200 more than the 17-40 actually)

edit: that being said, I wouldn't recommend the 28. It's a fine lens, but it doesn't really blow me away, hasn't got very much character for the price...

I know the 50mm I have is only good for upper portraits in the indoor space I have, the 35mm might be an alternative. I don't believe I would use 17mm much unless I was in funky mood.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I finally decided what kind of setup I wanted, so I picked up a 60D, EFs 15-85mm & the EF 70-300m IS USM. So far I'm pretty happy with it all. Theres a rebate on the 70-300 going through the middle of June. It's not a L, but it's damn good for $500 and more portable than the 70-200. The 15-85 is amazing, super sharp, fast focus, great color & contrast. Its the perfect outdoor walk around lens IMO.

 

[vtf]

I finally decided what kind of setup I wanted, so I picked up a 60D, EFs 15-85mm & the EF 70-300m IS USM. So far I'm pretty happy with it all. Theres a rebate on the 70-300 going through the middle of June. It's not a L, but it's damn good for $500 and more portable than the 70-200. The 15-85 is amazing, super sharp, fast focus, great color & contrast. Its the perfect outdoor walk around lens IMO.

The 15-85 gets good reviews on image quality within a reasonable price. This would fit, just have to consider that it's an ef-s lens..hmmmm....Thanks

 

[scorpion_tyr]

I just upgraded a few months ago from an XT to a 60D... it's a big jump, but well worth it. The only problem I've had (and it seems to be a common one) is the first few times I attach an external flash (It happened both with my 580EX II and my 430EX II) is that the sensor gets stuck so the camera thinks there's still an external flash on it and it won't pop up the built in flash. Not a big deal, all you have to do is very gently use a small screwdriver or something and (again very gently) push the sensor bar in the hotshoe back up. It seems to break itself in after a few on and off attachments of the flash and as of now works just fine.

The kit 18-135mm lens that comes with it is a decent lens. I don't shoot with it a lot, but I keep it on my camera for a quick shot if needed because of the versitility.