Alternative to my EF-S 17-55 ... switching lenses?

[Jon Braeley]

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.

[Andy Wilkinson]

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!

[Jon Braeley]

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!

[Ben Tolosa]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

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-eo...ml#post1571999

Hope this helps!!

Ben Tolosa

[Richard D. George]

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.

[Andy Wilkinson]

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...

[Richard D. George]

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.

[Jon Braeley]

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.

[Richard D. George]

..............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.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

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

OK, apology accepted on my side.

[Richard D. George]

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.

[Ben Tolosa]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

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...

[Ben Tolosa]

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

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...

[Ben Tolosa]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

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


Again I apologize.

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

[Ben Tolosa]

Originally Posted by Jon Braeley

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!