I have decided to exchange my 17-55. I was never that happy with the build quality for almost the cost of an L lens, though the IS is useful and I like the focal length.

I am leaning toward the 24-70mm 2.8L which I once owned when I also did stills. It's such a solid lens. I should have kept it. The main sway is a shoot in 2 weeks in central China, in some remote mountains. I've been there before and it gets very dusty shooting in the monasteries. My 17-55 would not stand up.

There is also the 16-35 L lens to consider.

I have the very wide covered with my Tokina 11-16 and I have my Canon 70-200 lens plus a 50mm 1.4.

Any thoughts.

Canon 24-70mm L

I hear you on the 17-55mm (I have it) but so far have not had any dust issues and the build quality is fair, but it's certainly not L standard. Images certainly are L standard though.

One thing I find with the 17-55mm on the 7D is that I often want a little more telephoto than 55mm but rarely need to go wider (or if I do I have a wide lens for that, in my case Canon 10-22mm).

Depending on how you shoot you'll sure miss the superb IS on the 17-55mm though. I'm still amazed that Canon have yet to launch the 24-70 with IS but that's covered elsewhere ad nauseum!

Also, it's a lens you've know well - you know you want another one!

The 24-70 would be my interview lens, which I do a lot of and always on a tripod.

Right now I use the 70-200 for interviews but the extra width would be nice.

The zoom on the 17-55 is not that smooth and I have dust and some moisture problems already after just 2 shoots. I just do not see a long future. It leaves me feeling that Canon should rethink their top EF-S lenses and give them L quality builds.

On the 24-70 with IS, I am told it is on the cards, but now I hear a rumor that it will be $2,000 plus!

I have decided to exchange my 17-55. I was never that happy with the build quality for almost the cost of an L lens, though the IS is useful and I like the focal length.

I am leaning toward the 24-70mm 2.8L which I once owned when I also did stills. It's such a solid lens. I should have kept it. The main sway is a shoot in 2 weeks in central China, in some remote mountains. I've been there before and it gets very dusty shooting in the monasteries. My 17-55 would not stand up.

There is also the 16-35 L lens to consider.

I have the very wide covered with my Tokina 11-16 and I have my Canon 70-200 lens plus a 50mm 1.4.

Any thoughts.

Jon,

I did extensive research on that focal range and I did consider EXACTLY all these lenses you are talking about. I asked here, I read about 80 reviews in about 8 or 9 different sites.

I came to the conlution that for me, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens was 'the' best choice.

I already got it, and have it in my camera at all times now. I am VERY happy with it, and even though I have no experienice with all of the other lenses mentioned above, for the results I am getting and for other people's work, I have no regreats and think I made the BEST choice.

Check this post where I show a very nice video made with the camera I have (7D) and this lens:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/484857-3-wide-zoom-lenses-short-film-7d-wow-my-100th-message-2.html#post1571999

Hope this helps!!

Ben Tolosa

It is stunning to me that none of you, Ben included, seems to understand the effect of the difference in field of view between a full-frame body and a crop body.

If you truly want to use the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 24-70 f/2.8L then you should be using a full-frame body. On a crop body, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, despite the build quality issues. There are still image photographers that indicated better results from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a crop body than the 25-105 f/4.0L IS on a full-frame body.

What a sweeping insult. Are you kidding???? It's so obvious it was not worth mentioning. This is a 7D forum after all and the OP, Jon, knows this stuff inside out anyway...

I apologize for what came across to some as an insult.

I have extensive experience in stills with both full-frame and crop bodies, and now I am using my glass for HD video. I used to own both the EF 17-40 f/4.0L and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L and traded both of them in, as a pair of 7D's are my primary bodies now for both stills and HD video. My son has a T2i, and uses the EF-S 15-85 IS, which has been very favorably reviewed (though it does not have a constant f/2.8 maximum aperature).

I have two Sachtler FSB fluid heads, so I know just a wee bit about the fact that IS is not required when shooting off a tripod (in fact it actually needs to be turned off).

Canon specifically made the EF-S zooms to provide the equivalent of their full-frame zooms, and in some cases, provided L quality optics ( as argued by many people, not just me) and the "pro" filter size (77 mm), though unfortunately not L build quality (which I agree is a shame).


The advantage of a "pro" consistent filter size (77 mm for Canon) is that you can have one set of expensive filters and use them on all lenses. The 82 mm filter size for the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II is odd. You can use a step-down ring and (I suppose) not have problems on a crop body. On a full frame body that would be problematic.

For full-frame, I am waiting on the next version of the 5D. When that body becomes available, I will likely buy an EF 16-35 f/2.8L II, and put up with the hassle of a separate set of filters.

What seems to be happening as crop bodies get used more frequently is that wide ange equivalent field of view is getting lost for many folks, which to me is truly a shame. 16 mm or 17 mm on a crop body is not overly wide (26 mm or 27 mm equivalent field if view). I noted that the OP had the Tokina to cover the wide range, but other posters don't seem to want anything in their lens quiver wider than 16 or 17 mm.

If many of you do not want to shoot true wide angle, and don't want IS for the "slightly wide to modest telephoto" equivalent field of view, that is certainly your perogative.

For best HD video results, and if you are shooting off a tripod and don't need / want IS, arguably the new Zeiss primes in a Canon EF mount would be superior to any of the Canon zooms, with many advantages for video (including long focus throw with a geared focus ring, and lovely color, per several reviews). For wide angle work, a full-frame body would be preferable. They are pricey but perhaps they will become available for rental.

Again I apologize.

As Andy pointed out one does not usually need to mention credentials or experience - I expect to be treated as a pro. I ran my own photography studio for 12 years (New York-Miami) until 1999 and since then produced and shot eight full length documentaries. I am also a contributor to the National Geographic Channel among many others. I have made my living from photography for 25 years.

And what we are discussing here is the very difference between lenses for crop and full bodies, so obviously if thats the topic, then we are aware of the difference.
I am not the first to suffer with the build-quality of EF-S lenses. They are poor. Obviously I think the optics are up to par because I use one. But I buy glass to last and 90% of my shoots are in very tough conditions - India, China and Japan. Each night means cleaning my equipment ... carefully. Last year shooting with my EX-3 in India a huge bug flew into the battery housing and got fried - end of the shoot, as I could only use mains power.
That is unforeseen, so I cannot whine but after one shoot with the EF-S, I got particles in the barrel mechanism and dust in the glass.

I carry two primes with my 3 zooms - mainly for low light interiors, such as monasteries which I shoot regularly. But I am a doc maker and setting up a shot is a luxury. Also I am limited to what can be carried - my last film was shot in the Himalayas where I took the 7D and the EX-3. So its down to 3 zooms and 2 primes. If I have space I will take a 2nd 7D body. I also take two tripods, a shoulder rig etc.

So... back to the lenses. I shoot in 2 weeks in China and I have no confidence in my EF-S - there is'nt even an aiport where I'm going - just an 18 hr train ride. I have the 11-16 zoom and a 24mm prime for wide end. I need to cover the range up to my 70-200mm lens. I also carry a 50mm 1.4.

..............then in your very specific need, then L zooms would be the best choice, and you might be able to get away with a step-down ring for filters, since you are using crop-bodies.

Is your 24 the EF 24 f/1.4L?

Might I ask if you would consider moving to full-frame bodies if the 5D replacement addresses certain issues? The reason I ask is that the L zooms with the build quality you need are best suited for full-frame. These three zooms would then "cover the waterfront" for you (from fully wide to telephoto), with the build quality you need:

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II (with separate filter set)
EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS (less bulky and has IS but is slower) or the EF 24-70 f/2.8L (very bulky, but good)
EF 70-200 L with IS (either the f/2.8L version which is bulky or the f/4.0L which is slower, but less bulky)

When the next version of the 5D comes out, I will probably get one, and then the 70-200 f/4.0L IS will be perfect in good light (the f/2.8L IS is just too bulky for me - though it is a great lens and faster) and the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II will make good sense. At that point I might sell the two 7D's and the EF-S lenses (the better ones sell fairly well, as best I can tell).

BTW - I have already had to send in my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS to Canon to get the dust cleaned out. At least the process was quick. Unlike dust on a sensor, the dust inside the lens, while maddening, did not seem to show up on still images.

I have asked Chris Hurd to see if my apology is sufficent. I will do something further if it is not.

I apologize for what came across to some as an insult..

OK, apology accepted on my side.

Thanks.

I fully agree with the build-quality issues, and it is unfortunate that Canon does not have better build quality for the EF-S lenses. By comparison, Nikon has good build quality on their better lenses designed for crop factor Nikon bodies. (They also just came out with VR (IS equiv.) for a wide zoom for their full-frame bodies, but that is another topic.)

Since the OP (or others) really needs L build quality, and doesn't want a ton of lenses (for travel reasons), then a move to a full-frame body (if the next version of the 5D addresses certain issues) would provide for L build quality and coverage from fully wide angle to telephoto with just three high-quality zooms, as my previous post suggests. Many professional still photographers use this 3-zoom combination of L zoom lenses on full-frame bodies, sometimes augmented with one or two fast L primes.

It is stunning to me that none of you, Ben included, seems to understand the effect of the difference in field of view between a full-frame body and a crop body.

If you truly want to use the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 24-70 f/2.8L then you should be using a full-frame body. On a crop body, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, despite the build quality issues. There are still image photographers that indicated better results from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a crop body than the 25-105 f/4.0L IS on a full-frame body.

Hi Richard,

Well, let me begin. You shouldn't be stunned about me not knowing much because I do not. That is the main reason why I am here, to learn. Although you do not really know how much I know, but I can tell you I did know the difference between a crop body and a full frame. I know I have to multiply and EF mm value by 1.6 in order to get the real range for my 7D. However, the reason why I've got and have only EF lenses is because I am planing (in the future) to get a full frame body. Perhaps (hopefully) a 5D Mark III (if that is the name of the next 5D).

To be continued...

What a sweeping insult. Are you kidding???? It's so obvious it was not worth mentioning. This is a 7D forum after all and the OP, Jon, knows this stuff inside out anyway...

Yes, I have to agree with you Andy. No need to 'insult' this way. And as for Jon, I wish I have his experience and expertise...

To be continued...

I apologize for what came across to some as an insult.


Again I apologize.


I appreciate you apology. All is good Richard ^_^

As Andy pointed out one does not usually need to mention credentials or experience - I expect to be treated as a pro. I ran my own photography studio for 12 years (New York-Miami) until 1999 and since then produced and shot eight full length documentaries. I am also a contributor to the National Geographic Channel among many others. I have made my living from photography for 25 years.

And what we are discussing here is the very difference between lenses for crop and full bodies, so obviously if thats the topic, then we are aware of the difference.
I am not the first to suffer with the build-quality of EF-S lenses. They are poor. Obviously I think the optics are up to par because I use one. But I buy glass to last and 90% of my shoots are in very tough conditions - India, China and Japan. Each night means cleaning my equipment ... carefully. Last year shooting with my EX-3 in India a huge bug flew into the battery housing and got fried - end of the shoot, as I could only use mains power.
That is unforeseen, so I cannot whine but after one shoot with the EF-S, I got particles in the barrel mechanism and dust in the glass.

I carry two primes with my 3 zooms - mainly for low light interiors, such as monasteries which I shoot regularly. But I am a doc maker and setting up a shot is a luxury. Also I am limited to what can be carried - my last film was shot in the Himalayas where I took the 7D and the EX-3. So its down to 3 zooms and 2 primes. If I have space I will take a 2nd 7D body. I also take two tripods, a shoulder rig etc.

So... back to the lenses. I shoot in 2 weeks in China and I have no confidence in my EF-S - there is'nt even an aiport where I'm going - just an 18 hr train ride. I have the 11-16 zoom and a 24mm prime for wide end. I need to cover the range up to my 70-200mm lens. I also carry a 50mm 1.4.


Someone told me in this forums, lenses are an investment that is going to last you. Bodies might last you 5 or 10 years, but lenses can last you for 20+.

So, I ONLY have 3 lenses and I hope they last for many more years to come:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens

I hope you have a wonderful trip and have a lot of fun!

Have a nice week you guys!

Ben:

Fair enough, but have you considered how to cover "fully wide" on your crop body until the 5D Mk III becomes available (and in in sufficient quantities to get one)?

You might consider a used EF-S 10-20 or the Tokina that the OP has. You can always sell it when you make the move. I can't speak for the Tokina but there is a good market for the better EF-S lenses.

Also, since you have chosen to forgo IS in the "barely wide to normal" field of view, you might consider a good shoulder rig (Zacuto, or something cheaper) and/or shoot off a tripod more (using a true fluid head).

Ben:

Fair enough, but have you considered how to cover "fully wide" on your crop body until the 5D Mk III becomes available (and in in sufficient quantities to get one)?

You might consider a used EF-S 10-20 or the Tokina that the OP has. You can always sell it when you make the move. I can't speak for the Tokina but there is a good market for the better EF-S lenses.

Also, since you have chosen to forgo IS in the "barely wide to normal" field of view, you might consider a good shoulder rig (Zacuto, or something cheaper) and/or shoot off a tripod more (using a true fluid head).

Hi Richard,

Well I did consider the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens, specially because of the IS and great reviews. I was about to buy that one but I ended up with the one I have because a full frame camera is a goal of mine. Just because technology only gets better and cheaper. I also read the other day Canon is making this sensor that is I can't remember how many more times bigger that the 5D sensor. I know, at a cost, but that means the current full frames should go down on price. I agree, if we have enough available, a 5D Mark III will be a dream come true.

I looked at the 'Striker and Z Cage' Zacuto rigs, but ended up postponing those purchases for the same reason I did not get the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens, because I am mainly going to shoot on a tripod. Although, I found this to be the best 'deal' for tripods and it will be either my next purchase or the following one (I still need to get a good shotgun mic [not sure between a Rode NTG-3, a 416 {to expensive}, or something else]):

Manfrotto 055XB Pro Tripod with 503HDV Fluid Video Head - B&H


Do you happen to know if that tripod goes with this following dolly?:

Manfrotto 114 Heavy Duty Cine/Video Dolly 114 - B&H Photo Video


At any rate, always appreciating your input.

Have a great week!!

Ben:

How do you plan to cover fully wide angle now?

The answer on tripods will probably not please you. Please search through the tripod sub-forum so you hear it from others. A manfrotto 503 will not be sufficient for HD work. You will need a true fluid head, like a Sachtler FSB or a Vinton Vision Blue, which will be expensive. Don't just take my word - fully search the tripod sub-forum to get other opinions. Unless the new Manfrotto 504 is completely different than it's predecessors, no sub-thousand dollar Manfrotto head will be fully up to the task for HD. Again, search the forums to confirm this.

Back to the actual topic - I just ordered a new EF-S 17-55 for my next shoot - mainly because its mostly hand-held shoulder rig work. My dusty existing 17-55 is going on my second camera permanently - it is changing lenses during a shoot that damaged this in the first place.

On your tripod - this head is plenty good enough as you are just starting out: The 504HD - in fact you could get away with the 501 for a very tight budget.
Manfrotto 504HD Fluid Video Head 504HD - B&H Photo Video

Its absurd to spend $2,000 to $3,000 on tripod-head combo when you are starting out and do not even have a good sound and mic set up. Also you need lots of practice with a fluid head before you know what you can do with it. For a cheap solution look at the Libecs also.
A very expensive head will not make much difference to your filmmaking than a cheap one right now. However a good mic will - spend your money wisely. Get a good mic before you get to pro fluid heads. The Rode will do fine - its very popular.

Jon:

For your dusty 17-55 now relegated to backup - Canon cleaned mine and turned it around fast, as I needed it for a two week vacation in Hawaii. The cost, as I recall, was reasonable. One of the reasons I now use two bodies is to minimize lens changes in the field.

Ben:

I agree with Jon about getting decent audio stuff early. The problem even with the Rode mic is the AGC in the 7D. Search the forums regarding this issue and the use of a separate digital recorder.

Since this thread is not about tripods I will leave it at this - As a beginner you spent a lot on pro level glass, right away. A Sachtler FSB 6 on aluminum legs would be just under $1,400. (Later - the FSB 4 on aluminum legs is only $840 and good to 8.8 lbs) The 504 might be OK, but search this forum about the 503 or the 503HDV. I have a 503 on CF legs gathering dust.

Ben:

How do you plan to cover fully wide angle now?

The answer on tripods will probably not please you. Please search through the tripod sub-forum so you hear it from others. A manfrotto 503 will not be sufficient for HD work. You will need a true fluid head, like a Sachtler FSB or a Vinton Vision Blue, which will be expensive. Don't just take my word - fully search the tripod sub-forum to get other opinions. Unless the new Manfrotto 504 is completely different than it's predecessors, no sub-thousand dollar Manfrotto head will be fully up to the task for HD. Again, search the forums to confirm this.

Jon:

For your dusty 17-55 now relegated to backup - Canon cleaned mine and turned it around fast, as I needed it for a two week vacation in Hawaii. The cost, as I recall, was reasonable. One of the reasons I now use two bodies is to minimize lens changes in the field.

Ben:

I agree with Jon about getting good audio stuff. The problem even with the Rode mic is the AGC in the 7D. Search the forums regarding this issue and the use of a separate digital recorder.

Since this thread is not about tripods I will leave it at this - As a beginner you spent a lot on pro level glass, right away. A Sachtler FSB 6 on aluminum legs would be just under $1,400. The 504 might be OK, but search this forum about the 503 or the 503HDV. I have a 503 on CF legs gathering dust.

Back to the actual topic - I just ordered a new EF-S 17-55 for my next shoot - mainly because its mostly hand-held shoulder rig work. My dusty existing 17-55 is going on my second camera permanently - it is changing lenses during a shoot that damaged this in the first place.

On your tripod - this head is plenty good enough as you are just starting out: The 504HD - in fact you could get away with the 501 for a very tight budget.
Manfrotto 504HD Fluid Video Head 504HD - B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/683559-REG/Manfrotto_504HD.html)

Its absurd to spend $2,000 to $3,000 on tripod-head combo when you are starting out and do not even have a good sound and mic set up. Also you need lots of practice with a fluid head before you know what you can do with it. For a cheap solution look at the Libecs also.
A very expensive head will not make much difference to your filmmaking than a cheap one right now. However a good mic will - spend your money wisely. Get a good mic before you get to pro fluid heads. The Rode will do fine - its very popular.

Hi Richard and Jon,

Well, thank you for the advice. It is certainly very much appreciated.
Yes, I thought sound it is a priority in my case...

This is what I am thinking to solve that:

Rode NTG-3 Basic Shotgun Microphone Kit - B&H Photo Video

Zoom H4n Handy Recorder Kit with 8GB SD Card and Remote Control


And then for the tripod, thanks to you; I was able to find this:

Manfrotto 504HD Head w/546B 2-Stage Aluminum 504HD,546BK - B&H


I think for about 700 buck (after rebate) is a good deal... And definetelly I can see a difference just on the pictures and reviews between the 503 and the 504. So, thanks very much for the suggestion.

Also, do you know if this:

Manfrotto 114 Heavy Duty Cine/Video Dolly 114 - B&H Photo Video


Will play well with that tripod?

A lot to learn, but a lot of fun.

Building my budget again...

THANKS TO YOU BOTH!!

A Sachtler FSB 4 on aluminum legs would be $840. Do a thorough search of the tripod sticks and heads before you buy anything.

How are you planning to cover fully wide angle now?

Getting back to the Canon 17-55mm EF-S and dust. It's my belief that some of the potential dust issues with this lens are not (just) due to lens changing in the field but very much from the "piston effect" when you zoom.

The interior air volume changes dramatically when zooming in, and any dusty air floating around near the lens will get sucked into the lens housing through the annular gap (between the lens body and the "plunger" part with the front lens element on it). This gap is bigger than I'd like. I have no proof this is what's actually happening - but I do have an "engineering brain" - so that's my hunch.

One thing I do with my (so far dustless) 17-55 is NOT to zoom (for shot composure before shooting starts) in any environment where I suspect this might happen (and I get to film in some pretty atrocious factory environments). Yes, I know this is a bit limiting! I also, always, make sure I wipe the outside surface of the extending plastic front part if I see any dust on it - so that this dust does not then get dragged into the body of the lens when you go wide again (as it'll then most likely stay inside!).

So far, after 10 months commercial use my 17-55 has no internal dust. Mind you, today I was shooting up in north Lincolnshire at a company in pooring rain - so dust was hardly an issue - water ingress was my main concern!!! I just kept it a full wide and shielded the lens as best I could with my other hand. The 7D's body is brilliantly weatherproof of course.

The other thing I've been thinking (a lot) about is putting some kind of more tightly fitting seal, perhaps an elasticated woman's hair tie type thing, which would "protect, filter and wipe" at this annular gap (a sort of retrofitted weather seal, if you like). There, that's another personal World Patent idea I've just blown by making it public....

Finally, there was a great "How To" video on YouTube that I found a while ago that shows you step-wise partial dismantling the front of this Canon 17-55 EF-S lens to remove internal dust and then putting it all back together. It looked pretty simple but not something I'd want to do on an expensive lens unless I really needed to (or something you could do easily on location). I mention it as it may interest some of you - can't remember the link but Google should find it very quickly.

Well I was born in Sheffield across the road from a huge steel-making factory, so I know a little about dust!

A 17-55 replacement arrives this week. Dust did get inside the zoom ring - thats why its not smooth anymore. Its very poor build for a $1,000 plus lens. But there is not much choice except for primes which are tough to use for me - I can never prep my shoots and also limited on weight and space.

I leave in 10 days for China so not much time time to spend looking at alternatives anyway and B&H are still closed until next week. Next year I will be shooting through the summer in India, China and Japan so I will have time to reorganize and even a new cam ... maybe the Scarlett or Epic will finally be available, which I will be in line for - they both use Canon lenses at least.

Mine seems to suck in less dust after I sent it to Canon to have them clean it out - maybe they improved the seals. Some still shooters put high-end UV filters to cover the front element, and claim this helps preventing dust geting behind the front element, but I suspect that is not where the dust is getting sucked in.

A Sachtler FSB 4 on aluminum legs would be $840. Do a thorough search of the tripod sticks and heads before you buy anything.

How are you planning to cover fully wide angle now?

Hi Richard,

I take your advice very seriously (no joke). So, let me ask you specifically:

Which one of these 2 and WHY?:

Sachtler 0372 FSB-4 Aluminum Tripod System 0372 - B&H Photo

Manfrotto 504HD Head w/546B 2-Stage Aluminum 504HD,546BK - B&H

I know you already mention the Sachtler, but between these 2, which one and why?


Very much appreciated!!

No further comment. The thread is about glass.

Another tripod option for light cameras...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/484468-vinten-vision-blue.html

But I digress. Back to glass...