Which L-Series should I buy first?

[Derrel]

For EVENT work, the OP's choices of the 24-70 or the 16-35 L series zooms are pretty bad choices for his current 1.6x body...the 17-55, while not optically "fantastic", would bea much,much better lens than his original two choices as a general-purpose lens. If you want better lens quality, go Nikon....otherwise...buy Canon...or Tamron...

.

Stupid ass comments like this pretty much discredit most of the drivel you spew forth.

Yeah....riiiiight Montana, right. Why do you think so,so,so many Canon shooters buy Zeiss wide-angle lenses? Canon has had "issues" with wide-angle and wide-angle zoom designs for decades.

16:9 | Photographic Resources & Lens Tests

"A New benchmark for Ultrawides: Nikon's Reference Grade Zoom. Canon 1Ds III plus Nikon 14-24mm G: the best ever DSLR rig for landscape and architecture. Unique tests here."

Nikon 14-24mm G Test v Canon 14mm L II

The Nikkor 14-24mm AF-S G blows away Canon's 14mm f/2.8-L prime....just blows it away...and it's better than Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L as well...and better than almost any other wide-angle prime lens from Canon,Nikon,or Zeiss...it's THAT good a lens. And, it's a zoom! Just LOOK at the side-by-side tests of how a random 14-24 blows away several "cherry-picked" lenses from other manufacturers.

 

[Stephen.C]

Down and dirty with the facts to back up your keyboard strokes. Love ya Derrel.
But yes, Agree with the 17-55 lens, the broader range will definitely be what you're looking for.

 

[den9]

16-35 is pretty useless on a crop sensor, and you can get a 17-40 for half the price, but f/4

id go for the 24-70

 

[Derrel]

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Lens Review

"The Canon and Tamron are similarly sharp in the center at all focal lengths. At mid zoom range, the Canon begins showing better edge performance - becoming much better at 50mm. Keep in mind that the Canon did not perform well on the ISO 12233 chart test - It doesn't seem to like closer focus distances. "

"The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens shows less vignetting than the Canon. The Tamron is more flare-resistant."

"The Sigma [18-50mm f/2.8 DC] shows more CA. The Tamron is noticeably wider (17mm vs. 18mm - and even wider than the Canon with the same 17mm designation). The Tamron focuses faster, the Sigma focuses more quietly. The Tamron focuses much more accurately - My keeper rate is far higher with the Tamron."

"In the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens, we have a very useful tool. Since it is small and light, we can take it everywhere. Since it is fast (f/2.8), we can use it in low light and indoors - and to stop action. Since it has very good image quality, we can use it for important shots. This list along with a nice general-purpose focal length range fills the requirements of a huge range of photographic opportunities (I'll let you think of them). For the price, the Tamron 17-50 is a bargain lens."

TODAY, the 17-50mm Tamron is $414 at B&H photo after rebate; the Canon 17-55 L-IS USM is $1,060.

 

[cfusionpm]

following me all over this board with a major hard-on Matty...seems like you went back months and months Matt, to try and somehow discredit my opinion. Nice try Matt!! (cfcontusion is Matt for those who don't know).

I love the flattery, but I really can't take credit for typing "17-55 2.8 Derrel" into the search bar and waiting 10 seconds for all the posts pop up. :thumbup: And I don't know who you're explaining my name to... it's not too hard to find, seeing as it's right there in my signature. :lmao:

Until then, you'll need to process out the significant chromatic aberration the 17-55 L IS shows on the 7D, in post work..or, buy a Nikon and let the camera do the CA removal...

"Significant" is a gross overstatement. Let me know next time you actually use this combo yourself, Derrel. Besides, Lightroom corrects automatically quickly and efficiently. And since it's done in post and not in-camera, I, the shooter/editor have control over it. Not the camera.

 

[rCOSIO]

A lot of you still say the Canon 17-55 f/28 for the 7D ...

With this being said, should I get the Tamron Darrel is talking about .... were talking about $600 difference!!! lol ..... for the lens that is similar ... anyone care to provide any info between the two?

 

[cfusionpm]

For a handful of reasons, I just personally don't like buying third party lenses. But that's my personal opinion (and my finances allow me to buy Canon first party lenses).

That said, I've seen a lot of happy owners of that Tamron. Perhaps some owners and users of the lens could offer an opinion?

Edit: also, the link above is for the Tamron without VC (Vibration Compensation, Tamron's version of Image Stabilization). Here is that same site giving a brief look at the VC version, and another I found off Google.

 

[rCOSIO]

LOL ... another curve ball .... after looking at a few things, I may be purchasing the the 5D MKII in Feb of 2011 (5 Months) ....

Hmmmmm, back to 24-70? lol

 

[cfusionpm]

Rent one first. Find a local shop that rents lenses (I know George's Camera near downtown San Diego does) and try it out for a day. If you find the focal length too limiting on the wide end, a 17-55 may suit your needs best at the moment. And if/when you get a full frame, you could always sell it for a reletively minimal loss or just keep it on the crop as a second (or third) body.

 

[inTempus]

Hey Guys,

Finally been gathering up some money to purchase my first L-Series, especially that I just purchased my Canon 7D last month. Well with that being said, Im torn between:

24-70 f/2.8
16-35 f/2.8

I don't want to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8 just yet, because I have access to one when ever I need it. So at this point, knowing that I have a Crop Canon 7D, which lens would be best for me? I have been shooting concerts, clubs, portraits, and starting to get into wedding and 15th bdays .... yah, too much variety maybe.

I have rented the 24-70 f/2.8 twice before and like it, but have not shot the 16-35 and have heard people say they prefere one over the other cause Im not shooting FF yet .....

What would you guys recommend?

Neither. 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I've shot with the 17-55 on a 7D quite a bit, and honestly it's one of the coolest combos for that body there is. So yeah, +1.

 

[inTempus]

LOL ... another curve ball .... after looking at a few things, I may be purchasing the the 5D MKII in Feb of 2011 (5 Months) ....

Hmmmmm, back to 24-70? lol

You'll be trading in your 7D on a 5D2?

Why? They are two totally different cameras with two completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. If you bought the 7D for its AF system, frames per second, color metering, flash control system, etc. you'll lose all of that going to the 5D2.

What do you plan on doing with the 5D2? Are you really going to "upgrade" the 7D to the 5D2, or are you just kind of window shopping and will keep the 7D for a couple of years?

 

[rCOSIO]

LOL ... another curve ball .... after looking at a few things, I may be purchasing the the 5D MKII in Feb of 2011 (5 Months) ....

Hmmmmm, back to 24-70? lol

You'll be trading in your 7D on a 5D2?

Why? They are two totally different cameras with two completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. If you bought the 7D for its AF system, frames per second, color metering, flash control system, etc. you'll lose all of that going to the 5D2.

What do you plan on doing with the 5D2? Are you really going to "upgrade" the 7D to the 5D2, or are you just kind of window shopping and will keep the 7D for a couple of years?

No, I plan on keeping both. Use the 7D for some sports and fun. Use the 5Dii for weddings and quince's ......

 

[Village Idiot]

Oh hey guys, Nikon made one good lens.

LOL ... another curve ball .... after looking at a few things, I may be purchasing the the 5D MKII in Feb of 2011 (5 Months) ....

Hmmmmm, back to 24-70? lol

24-70 is awesome on a 5D MKII. Not so much on a crop sensor. It's just way to long on the wide end. If you can survive 5 months with it, then I say go for it, but just remember that you'll probably be cursing yourself when your shooting tight.

 

[Montana]

For EVENT work, the OP's choices of the 24-70 or the 16-35 L series zooms are pretty bad choices for his current 1.6x body...the 17-55, while not optically "fantastic", would bea much,much better lens than his original two choices as a general-purpose lens. If you want better lens quality, go Nikon....otherwise...buy Canon...or Tamron...

.

Stupid ass comments like this pretty much discredit most of the drivel you spew forth.

Yeah....riiiiight Montana, right. Why do you think so,so,so many Canon shooters buy Zeiss wide-angle lenses? Canon has had "issues" with wide-angle and wide-angle zoom designs for decades.

16:9 | Photographic Resources & Lens Tests

"A New benchmark for Ultrawides: Nikon's Reference Grade Zoom. Canon 1Ds III plus Nikon 14-24mm G: the best ever DSLR rig for landscape and architecture. Unique tests here."

Nikon 14-24mm G Test v Canon 14mm L II

The Nikkor 14-24mm AF-S G blows away Canon's 14mm f/2.8-L prime....just blows it away...and it's better than Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L as well...and better than almost any other wide-angle prime lens from Canon,Nikon,or Zeiss...it's THAT good a lens. And, it's a zoom! Just LOOK at the side-by-side tests of how a random 14-24 blows away several "cherry-picked" lenses from other manufacturers.

Not denying the Nikon 14-24 Is a great lens, but has nothing to do with the original question. And your blanket statement about Canon lenses is laughable.....at best.

I could take an image shot with a 17-55, a 16-35, and the nikon 14-24 and lay out the final prints in front of you and you would never be able to tell the difference. Especially when judging by your post count over the last year..............seems you are less of a photographer and more of a key board jockey. I think folks that have actually used the 17-55 have way more of an idea about the image quality the lens is capable of producing.:thumbup:

 

[cfusionpm]

Not denying the Nikon 14-24 Is a great lens, but has nothing to do with the original question. And your blanket statement about Canon lenses is laughable.....at best.

I could take an image shot with a 17-55, a 16-35, and the nikon 14-24 and lay out the final prints in front of you and you would never be able to tell the difference. Especially when judging by your post count over the last year..............seems you are less of a photographer and more of a key board jockey. I think folks that have actually used the 17-55 have way more of an idea about the image quality the lens is capable of producing.:thumbup:

According to a quick profile check, looks to be almost 25 posts just today! Spanning from about 9:30am till now (4:35PM) PST. Quite a productive way to spend your Friday!