Canon 7D

[KAT4DISNEY]

My nephew got his 7D from newegg a little over a month ago. He's a pretty frugal shopper so you might take a look.

 

[C&B Young]

When I got my 50D I had to switch to CF from SD too. What I did also, though, was picked up one of these adapters, so that your SD cards won't totally go to waste. I'm not sure if write speed is compromised by the adapter, but it seems to work fine for shooting stills for me anyways.

 

[trickiwoo]

I LOVE Photo4Less.com! I buy cameras and lenses from that site all the time. The prices are some of the best I've ever seen. I've rarely had to deal with their customer service, but when I've had to I've had absolutely wonderful experiences! They are also SO fast at shipping! Every time I make a purchase, my order comes in just 2-3 days!

 

[LoraJ]

DH has one. I will ask where he got his when he wakes up. He usually shops at BH and amazon (we have prime shipping).

I would also go for a larger card, at least 8gb. I just bought a Sandisc 16gb for my new Lumix ZS7, class 10, probably way more than I need.

 

[BorisMD]

Hi all,

I am trying to decide what I want as my main lens. I currently have the 28-135 IS kit lens, a 10-22 EF-S, nifty fifty, and a 70-200 f/4L IS.

I'm looking at getting either the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS, or the 17-40 f/4L as my main daily use lens.

Any other thoughts or comments on this?

Thanks,

Boris

 

[VVFF]

Hi all,

I am trying to decide what I want as my main lens. I currently have the 28-135 IS kit lens, a 10-22 EF-S, nifty fifty, and a 70-200 f/4L IS.

I'm looking at getting either the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS, or the 17-40 f/4L as my main daily use lens.

Any other thoughts or comments on this?

Thanks,

Boris

The only reason I have ever seen people go with the 17-40 over the 17-55 is when they can't get over the red ring or the build quality.

Personally if it were me I would be deciding between the 17-55mm, 15-85mm or the 24-105mm.

All these are excellent lenses with designs that I think "work" well on the 7D. The 24-105 will not have great wide angle capability but has better telephoto if you shoot that more often. All have IS and all work pretty well with the high resolution 7D sensor.

I personally own the 17-55mm and, after returning my first that was ordered refurbished and buying new, I love the thing. Perfect optically and mechanically. Do I wish it was built like an L? Absolutely! I would pay a bit more for the L treatment but I'm not going to give up IS, optical quality and range just to get a red ring.

The 15-85mm is a very nice lens as well, its a little smaller, has great range and is very sharp. It's really a decision between aperture and range IMO.

Lastly the 24-105, you get the L built quality, you get a good range, but you give up wide angle and you don't get the F2.8 of the 17-55mm.

You really can't go wrong between these choices. Do you find your 28-135 often limiting you on the wide end? Set your 10-22mm to 22mm, do you think you need even wider? Can you deal with a non-constant aperture? These are all questions that I think will help you decide. Enjoy!

 

[Master Mason]

I don't have a 7D but do have a 40D.

When I was looking I came down to the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8L I opted for the 24-70. My reasons were better build and it filled the range to my 70-200...

I have only one time wished I had wider, and that was shooting inside at the Winchester Mystery House, where I couldn't get everything into the frame I wanted, and I couldn't foot zoom it as your limited on where you can stand.

But you already have the 10-22 that covers that range.

And I went with the 24-70 over the 24-105 for the f/2.8 instead of f/4

 

[photo_chick]

I've got the 50D and I use an old, old (from my 35mm Rebel) 28-105 as my walkaround lens. I'd be picking up the 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 L if I had your gear and was looking for another lens.

But we each look for different things in a lens. What is it that you feel like you're lacking?

 

[Raindown]

You seem to have the focal lengths covered well, so my question is what do you find lacking? You say a daily lens. Do you normally shoot in sunlight or controlled lighting situations? indoors?

I usually like the wide apertures of 2.8 or below. However, for a walk around lens during the day, I was impressed with the 24-105. I was really iffy about the f/4 bit turned out very good, especially at low ISO. If you could give us more specifics perhaps a more specific recommendation could be made.

I have the 16-35 also, and that is pretty close to the 17-40 in terms of FL. Honestly it is not the most interesting FL on the 7D. I use the 16-35 indoor to help get wider angles. Still, I often find myself at 16 and 35mm without much use in the middle. I'll say that even with 2.8 indoors is still a little tricky without flash.

 

[Shutterbug]

40D and I dont have just one. I always have my 17-40 2.8 Tamron and the 70-200 F4 L with me in the camera bag. Some occasions the 50 1.8 is in there too.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree that the question is really relevant to anyone with a similar sized sensor. I have both a 5D and a 7D. I've had other cameras with APS-C sized sensors in the past. My most uses lenses are my 70-200 f/2.8 when people shooting and my 24-70 or 24-105 when general shooting. On the 7D, I'd probably mix in the 17-40 as well.

If I were committed to the APS-C format, I'd probably get the 17-55 f/2.8. I'd only get the 17-40 if I was planning to use it on a film or full frame camera.

 

[BorisMD]

Thanks all for your replies. You all make excellent points.

I actually had the 24-70 2.8 for a few years, and used it as my main lens on a Rebel XT. I liked it, but its weight, combined with my not so great hand holding technique, led to more shots ruined by motion blur than I cared to see. So, I recently sold it on FredMiranda for about $100 less than I paid for it. Not bad for three years use -- that speaks volumes for the resale value of "L".

I really like the idea of the 24-105, but I rented one for a Disney trip, and was exceedingly disappointed with how out of focus a majority of the shots were. Whether I had the proverbial bad copy, one that needed servicing, or was poorly matched in use with a Rebel XT, I'm not sure. But the experience really soured me on this lens for a long time (in fact, that's what prompted me to rent and ultimately buy the 24-70). Maybe I need to try another one on this body.

I agree that I have the wide end covered with the 10-22. It's a great lens.

What I mostly shoot is daylight outdoors, and if I go out in the dark, I use a tripod or some other camera stabilizing object (railing, trash can, etc). If I use the larger aperture, it's really for only two things -- indoor without flash, or getting really shallow depth of field.

My suspicion is that the 17-55 2.8 IS would be great for indoor low light stuff if I have a stationary subject. Yet, one of my friends says that you can't beat the "L" for richness in color, and sharpness of focus (referring to the 17-40).

I'm not committed to APS-C, but I just bought the 7D, and am in no hurry to go full frame. I don't feel like my skills are at a point where a smaller sensor is keeping me back.

Regards,

Boris

 

[k5jm]

10-22 sigma. I love love love that lens on my 7D and my xti

 

[VVFF]

Thanks all for your replies. You all make excellent points.

I actually had the 24-70 2.8 for a few years, and used it as my main lens on a Rebel XT. I liked it, but its weight, combined with my not so great hand holding technique, led to more shots ruined by motion blur than I cared to see. So, I recently sold it on FredMiranda for about $100 less than I paid for it. Not bad for three years use -- that speaks volumes for the resale value of "L".

I really like the idea of the 24-105, but I rented one for a Disney trip, and was exceedingly disappointed with how out of focus a majority of the shots were. Whether I had the proverbial bad copy, one that needed servicing, or was poorly matched in use with a Rebel XT, I'm not sure. But the experience really soured me on this lens for a long time (in fact, that's what prompted me to rent and ultimately buy the 24-70). Maybe I need to try another one on this body.

I agree that I have the wide end covered with the 10-22. It's a great lens.

What I mostly shoot is daylight outdoors, and if I go out in the dark, I use a tripod or some other camera stabilizing object (railing, trash can, etc). If I use the larger aperture, it's really for only two things -- indoor without flash, or getting really shallow depth of field.

My suspicion is that the 17-55 2.8 IS would be great for indoor low light stuff if I have a stationary subject. Yet, one of my friends says that you can't beat the "L" for richness in color, and sharpness of focus (referring to the 17-40).

I'm not committed to APS-C, but I just bought the 7D, and am in no hurry to go full frame. I don't feel like my skills are at a point where a smaller sensor is keeping me back.

Regards,

Boris

The 17-55mm is sharper than the 24-70 and 24-105mm. Almost any person with a knowledge of these lenses will admit that. Granted, two are full frame and one is crop only.

I have seen arguments for color rendition, however, I have yet to see any side by side proof. Honestly, I don't know about you, but I edit my photos enough that will make any minor difference in color rendition negligible.

 

[Master Mason]

The 17-55mm is sharper than the 24-70 and 24-105mm. Almost any person with a knowledge of these lenses will admit that. Granted, two are full frame and one is crop only.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but from my reading and those that I know that actually have the lenses in question, I know of no one that would admit or agree that the 17-55 is any sharper than the 24-70.

I don't have the 17-55, and I strongly concidered it when I was in the market so I have read a lot about it, so the above statement isn't a knock on the lens, and I'm not saying it simply because I went the 24-70 route, I simply find the statement to be incorrect.

 

[VVFF]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but from my reading and those that I know that actually have the lenses in question, I know of no one that would admit or agree that the 17-55 is any sharper than the 24-70.

I don't have the 17-55, and I strongly concidered it when I was in the market so I have read a lot about it, so the above statement isn't a knock on the lens, and I'm not saying it simply because I went the 24-70 route, I simply find the statement to be incorrect.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/353/cat/11
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11

In general, the 17-55mm is sharper than the 24-70 as you should be able to see in the links above. Granted, both are probably more than adequate for most people, but there is a reason people are asking for a 24-70 replacement(and its not just for IS). The 24-70 is also known for having quite a bit of sample variety that leads many people to swap lenses until they find one good enough.

Again, this is a topic you'll find some differing opinions on, however, I wouldn't say its easy to claim that the 24-70 is sharper than the 17-55mm. If you assume a good copy of each at best the 24-70 will likely come up a little behind like in the reviews above. Note that Photozone specifically says that they had to search for a good copy of the lens to review.

 

[Master Mason]

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/353/cat/11
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11

In general, the 17-55mm is sharper than the 24-70 as you should be able to see in the links above. Granted, both are probably more than adequate for most people, but there is a reason people are asking for a 24-70 replacement(and its not just for IS). The 24-70 is also known for having quite a bit of sample variety that leads many people to swap lenses until they find one good enough.

Again, this is a topic you'll find some differing opinions on, however, I wouldn't say its easy to claim that the 24-70 is sharper than the 17-55mm. If you assume a good copy of each at best the 24-70 will likely come up a little behind like in the reviews above. Note that Photozone specifically says that they had to search for a good copy of the lens to review.

Ok, so Some people think it is sharper, if you look at the reviews on Fred Miranda or Photograpy on the Net, you'll find just as many people that feel the 24-70 is sharper.

Both are good/great lenses, but I don't think that it is clear that one is sharper than the other.

 

[VVFF]

Ok, so Some people think it is sharper, if you look at the reviews on Fred Miranda or Photograpy on the Net, you'll find just as many people that feel the 24-70 is sharper.

Both are good/great lenses, but I don't think that it is clear that one is sharper than the other.

Like I said, you'll always find people that think one lens is sharper than another. I just linked to reviews which show numbers behind the sharpness of each. People are obviously allowed to disagree. And yes, as I said, both lenses are great.

 

[JimbobJimbo]

I've usually got the 24-105 on mine most of the time. I used to own the 17-55 but found that I liked the extra reach.

 

[alloyd1170]

Right now, the Tamron 18-270 lives on my 7D. Before that it was either the 28-135, or 70-300 (depending on what I was going to be shooting). I love the range of the Tamron, but not that it turns opposite of the Canon lenses (and at one point it is harder to zoom).