Canon EF 24 - 70mm f2.8 L USM

[froot]

Finally got the money to go for a short lens...

I've got the standard 18-55mm Canon lens that obviously isn't that awesome, and it having a rotating body is really annoying.
For this reason my shortest lens at the moment is my 70-200L so I'm looking for something in the 18-(70-100) region I suppose. My budget is around 13k.
I'm using a Canon 7D so since it's not a full-frame body the short end of the lens... should be on the short side of things

Anyone got comments about this lens, or alternatives I can look at? I've looked at the Sigma (the 24-70 f/2.8) but I'd prefer to stick to Canon lenses.

 

[bwana]

Anyone got comments about this lens, or alternatives I can look at? I've looked at the Sigma (the 24-70 f/2.8) but I'd prefer to stick to Canon lenses.

There are a few sigma 24-70s - the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM being on par with, or exceeding, the canon one in terms of sharpness and AF speed. Being less expensive doesn't hurt either.

 

[froot]

Yes that definitely is true.
My dad also suggested looking at the Canon EF 16-35 F2.8 L II (R14000).

Basically I'm looking for a great wide-angle lens. I've been reading the review on the 70-24 and they do make several mentions of the fact that on a 1.6x FOVCF it does start to get rather long... and they recommend the 16-35 and the 18-55 EF-S f/2.8.

Yes the Sigma I was referring to was that one, I think, it goes for just under R10k.

 

[bwana]

If you've got the 70-200 then a 24-70 is a nice match. Later on you can always add the 16-35 or the less expensive 17-40 f/4.

My 16-35 is probably my least used lens - probably should have opted for the 17-40 myself.

 

[froot]

Ok cool.

Yeah these are basically what I am considering:
24-70 (according to the-digital-picture you lose the first 6mm with corners and vignetting)
16-35
and the 17-40, which I would be more inclined to buy than the rather expensive 16-35.

 

[bwana]

Ok cool.

Yeah these are basically what I am considering:
24-70 (according to the-digital-picture you lose the first 6mm with corners and vignetting)
16-35
and the 17-40, which I would be more inclined to buy than the rather expensive 16-35.

Huh?

 

[froot]

the-digital-picture -> They do a lot of the reviews that I read.
here

 

[bwana]

the-digital-picture -> They do a lot of the reviews that I read.
here

Whats that about losing the first 6mm though?

 

[froot]

Oh sorry, can't find it on this review now. Must have been another one. But ok yeah, they do still say it's a good lens (bar the size and hefty 950g weight)

 

[bwana]

Oh sorry, can't find it on this review now. Must have been another one. But ok yeah, they do still say it's a good lens (bar the size and hefty 950g weight)

Yeah - the weight is considerable. I rented one a few times before I opted for the Sigma.

 

[Edduck]

if I was you i would go for a sigma 24-70 (the newest version) and a sigma/canon 10-20. Then you are sorted for all your focal lengths and and can later add a 120-300 f2.8 + extender for reach!

^^^ my dream (APS-C) combo by the way

 

[froot]

Ok. One last question for now I think.
SIGMA 17-50MM F2.8 EX DC OS HSM....

Ideas on that one? They mention some issues at the 17mm area but say that overall it gives equivalent, of not better, results than the competing lenses from Nikon and Canon.

 

[hilton]

If you need a decent lens that can take wide shots why not look at the 17-55 f/2.8?

The gap between 55 and 70 is about one small step either way. Seriously you will use the 17 end more than you think.

Or alternatively, if you are dead certain you want the wide end, think about two lenses, rather than one.

Canon 10-22 plus maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

If it was me, I would get the Canon 15-85, it's very sharp and at 15mm it's pretty wide, equivalent of 24 on FF.

Then compliment this with a decent prime like the Sigma 30 or Canon 35.

 

[froot]

The 17-55 f/2.8 is very nice apart from the fact that if I were to upgrade to a full-frame body, then this lens would be stuck with the 7D (it's an EF-S lens). Otherwise I've heard nothing but good reports on it.

I'm not considering the 15-85. Sure it's a nice lens, but I am looking at a low aperature lens.... f/2.8 preferably but f/4 at the very least.

 

[RanzB]

if I was you i would go for a sigma 24-70 (the newest version) and a sigma/canon 10-20. Then you are sorted for all your focal lengths and and can later add a 120-300 f2.8 + extender for reach!

What I have and what I was going to suggest

 

[froot]

if I was you i would go for a sigma 24-70 (the newest version) and a sigma/canon 10-20. Then you are sorted for all your focal lengths and and can later add a 120-300 f2.8 + extender for reach!

^^^ my dream (APS-C) combo by the way

Will take a further look at that.
Already have a 70-200 and a 100-400 (+1.4x) so reach isn't an issue for me.

 

[hilton]

Dude, don't worry about what may or may not happen in the future (in terms of upgrading). You have the 7D now, it's a very nice camera and it makes more sense to upgrade to the 7DII than to go full frame unless you have a spare R30k lying around.

 

[froot]

@hilton
Only trying to future proof.

Meh @ the Sigma 17-50mm.... it doesn't have Full Time Manual. So crossing that one off my list.

 

[bwana]

Dude, don't worry about what may or may not happen in the future (in terms of upgrading). You have the 7D now, it's a very nice camera and it makes more sense to upgrade to the 7DII than to go full frame unless you have a spare R30k lying around.

The 5dMk2 is about 21k and you never know what the future holds. TBH I'm still reeling from the shock that Canon has eliminated the APS-H from their 1D line. Makes me wonder if they've abandoned it completely or are going to use it in a new prosumer body somewhere down the line.

@hilton
Only trying to future proof.

Meh @ the Sigma 17-50mm.... it doesn't have Full Time Manual. So crossing that one off my list.

I don't blame you.

 

[hilton]

The R30 I mentioned was aimed at the 5D MkIII which is out next year. It's going to be more....