Which L-Series should I buy first?

[rCOSIO]

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?

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[rCOSIO]

Hey Darrel,

I always read your great reply's and would have to ask, why the 17-55 f/2.8 IS .... I really plan on just getting into Weddings, 15th Bdays, and portraits.

This is your choice? Because of IS? Sorry for the questions ....

 

[Scatterbrained]

50 1.2

 

[Big Mike]

I'll agree with Derrell. The 17-555mm F2.8 IS, may be the best 'normal range' lens for your camera.

By all accounts, it produces image quality that is on par with most L zoom lenses, so that's not an issue. It just doesn't get L status because it's an EF-S lens.

However, if you do plan on someday upgrading to full frame, then you might be better off with a full frame EF lens, but the 17-55mm should hold it's value pretty well, so you could always sell it, if/when you don't need it.

 

[Robin Usagani]

50 1.2

overpriced

 

[Scatterbrained]

50 1.2

overpriced

and it has a focus shift issue. . . .

 

[Derrel]

Well, both 16-35 and 24-70 are serious compromises if you have only one top-quality zoom and a 1.6x camera AND want to shoot event work...you want the ability to go wide and normal and slight telephoto within seconds,without a lens change...neither the 16-35 nor the 24-70 can do all those things in one,single zoom lens. 35mm is too short of a top-end, and 24 is too long of a bottom end on a 1.6x camera, so the 17-55/2.8,with IS, (or a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8) gives you a high-quality zoom lens with the range of focal lengths, the max aperture, and the Image Stabilizer feature, all for a reasonable price.

IMO, you want a fixed-aperture zoom for doing event/flash work, so that manual flashes are easily used,and no worrying about the aperture losing light as the lens is zoomed. Once you buy a FF body, then the 24-70 makes a lot of sense, but until then, its a limitation. The 17-55 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 make a lot of sense for event work.

 

[rCOSIO]

Darrel ... AWESOME response ... and thanks to everyone else. The 17-55 f/2.8 sounds like the fit ....

CURVE BALL .... would you still reccomend the 17-55 f/2.8 if I plan on purchasing a 5D MKII next year (whole year from here) ..... It sounds like the 24-70 f/28 would be a better fit on a FF .... but help me out guys, if you were in my shoes an you plan on keeping the 7D and purchasing a 5D a year from now ... keeping both body's ..... i'd like to use the 7D for some sports and the 5D for weddings .... should i bite the bullet using a 24-70 on my 7D for a year, or should i just get the 17-55 and eventually get the 24-70 after the 5D is purchased ...

promise i wont ask another question in this thread lol

 

[pbelarge]

What do you like to photograph?

I did not see the last thread of sports and weddings.:er:

The lenses are about $250 difference, makes this a harder decision if you are sure you will also purchase the 5D next year.

 

[cfusionpm]

Wow, I'm surprised to see Derrel so on board with the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS here!

I agree though, that it is the best choice for a 7D (or really... every crop body Canon), that's why I bought one myself and absolutely love it. But I get a big chuckle out of the complete about-face taken by Derrel about this particular pair. Gotta love that search button!

if you plan on migrating this lens forward to the new 7D, I think you might be disappointed in the performance of this lens. HOnestly, it does not have very good looking image quality on the 7D's high-MP sensor,especially at the wider end of its reach. The images look almost like they have some type of video-y look, as if they were shot through really thick plexiglass like the kind used in huge aquariums. At full-size, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS-USM's wider angle images at f/8 are just not that good-looking.

But the fact remains--with that high-density 5.4 Megapixel per Square Centimeter sensor density, the LENS performance that I have seen in several reviews does not look good when using the 17-55 f/2.8 L EF-S lens,and frankly it does not look very good on the 24-105-L zoom either. Looking very closely at full-sized samples shot with the 17-55, I see a LOT of chromatic aberration problems and a slightly 'fuzzy' quality at the edges of most frames shot with the 17-55 f/2.8.

it's kind of sad really, to see how even the 17-55 EF-S, a very costly lens, is not well-corrected enough to alleviate chromatic aberration at the short end when it is used on the EOS 7D and its almost 18-megapixel sensor.

It seems to me from looking very closely at 7D images, that the current pixel density the 7D has, 17.8 MP, which would scale up to about 46MP on FF, means that better optical performance is needed for the 7D. Some of the current Canon lenses are simply not up to the task of maximizing the incredible pixel density the 17.8 MP 1.6x FOV sensors; chromatic aberration and insufficient resolving power is clearly a problem on the lower-end EF-S lenses when they are paired with the 7D's new, high-tech sensor. Canon's current EF-S lenses, including the 17-55, are not "quite" there on the 7D.

it's clear that the Canon 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 lens looks absolutely horrible when paired with the 7D's high-density,small-pixel sensor. [...] Clearly, the 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 is being out-resolved by the sensor,and the lens is simply not up to the task.

There's a certain "video-like" mix of poor acutance and slight chromatic aberration in the dPreview full-sized samples. The London shots of the buildings and downtown landscape taken at 17mm look dreadful when opened up on my 30 inch Cinema Display--the images look about like a 20D shot with a cheap 18-55 pre-IS Canon kit lens. It's hard to describe, but I see a sort of veiling distortion,almost as if the images were shot through thick plexiglass. Fine,fine detail is simply not being resolved, even at f/8 and ISO 100 and shutter speeds that ought to be sufficient, like 1/320.

But then again, having actually owned and used this pair, I never really saw any of what he was talking about. I've been very pleased with the combo. :thumbup:

 

[Derrel]

Well Matt, take a good,close look at my response...I also suggest TAMRON's 17-50mm f/2.8 as a viable option...if he's going to shoot people work, he'll need a lens that can do the job, and the 17-55 2.8 is all Canon has within the price range, with the coverage angles, maximum aperture, and the Image Stabilizer system. people work doesn't demand very much in terms of image quality at the edges of the frame; its is much,much, much more important to not miss a shot, or to be able to GET the shot needed,at a location.

WHile the 17-55/2.8 L-IS USM is not a "fantastic" lens on the 7D for the LANDSCAPE IMAGES I referenced above, several months ago, the OP here wants a lens for event work. So, there's really no about-face by me...you're a master at picking items out of context and 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).

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...

And now, back to the OP's second follow-up: well, do nopt buy for the future and harm your work in the present. You need a good "event" lens, so buy the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the comparable Canon and KEEP it for the 7D; once you add a 5D, it too will need a good lens, or two, so buy the right equipment for what yuo are shooting this year, and let next year take care of itself next year.

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...and if you cannot see the chromatic aberration the 17-55 produces at the shorter end, give it a few years until your eye and experience develops, and you'll see the problems the lens has. By then, perhaps Canon will have a better lens, or will figure out how to do in-camera CA elimination. Let the future take care of itself.

 

[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.

To the OP, the 17-55 is a great lens optically. The build quality and lack of weather sealing are draw backs to me personally, especially for the price of the lens. There are some reports of people have IS failures with this lens, so take that for what its worth as well. As for still purchasing it if you plan on going full frame in a year......that is something only you can really answer. If you are keeping your crop sensor camera as well, then I would get it and keep it.

 

[Neil S.]

I'll agree with Derrell. The 17-555mm F2.8 IS, may be the best 'normal range' lens for your camera.

By all accounts, it produces image quality that is on par with most L zoom lenses, so that's not an issue. It just doesn't get L status because it's an EF-S lens.

However, if you do plan on someday upgrading to full frame, then you might be better off with a full frame EF lens, but the 17-55mm should hold it's value pretty well, so you could always sell it, if/when you don't need it.

I agree with Big Mike here, and he makes many good points.

One of the reasons that the 17-55 2.8 has such good image quality is that Canon used 2 UD elements, and 3 aspherical elements on it. These reduce CA, and improve image quality all around.

The use of these elements is somewhat uncommon for non L glass. I believe there are 2 other EF-S lenses that use UD elements though (10-22, 55-250).

I own the 17-55 2.8 and can vouch for its image quality, which is very descent even on my hungry-for-glass 7D. It isn't as sharp as my L primes, or my 70-200 2.8 mk II, but this is to be expected.

One thing I really dont like about it is that it just plain feels cheap. The construction is not very good, and it is far from durable in my opinion.

One of the coolest things about buying L glass, is that they are built to last.

Another thing to consider is that it wont work on full frame. This is something that will be a problem for me if I upgrade to the 5D mk III when its released.

I am currently holding my breath on a 24-70 2.8L IS. Any time now would be nice Canon...

 

[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.

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.