Airliners.net

Currently I own a Canon 400D with a Sigma 17-70 and a 70-200F4L IS + 1,4x (and a 50mm f1.8), and I am planning to upgrade soon. My choices were initially between the 550D, 50D, 7D and 5D2. I thought that if I move up, I might as well do it well (budget is OK) and eliminated the first two. Between the 7D and the 5D2 the latter will be the best most likely (from a camera-only perspective), but my doubt was mostly to do with the corresponding lenses, as obviously one is full frame and the other isn't. I will definitely keep the 70-200 (most brilliant lens ever) and the 50mm (fun thing), but the 17-70 will go.

Question is: what to replace it with? If I'd go with the 7D I would most likely go with the 17-55 f/2.8 as it seems to be the best wide angle for crop cameras, but if I'd go with the 5D2 my choice would be the 17-40, 24-70 or 24-105 that all seem to be good, but not stellar. As wide angle is the lens type I use most often, the camera choice is heavily depending on lens choice. So the question is then: 7D + 17-55f2.8 or 5D + one of the three mentioned? I don't think I'll upgrade from either of them (to the 1D) so it's not problem that EF-S lenses won't work on a full frame later.

Weight will have some consideration as well - that would not affect cameras (10g difference) but probably rule out the 24-70.

I do not only shoot aviation, but also quite a bit of travel photography.

Thoughts and experiences appreciated!

7D is a very sweet camera (I own one), but the 5DmkII is just alot more camera unless you absolutely have to have the extra FPS and better AF. Its also a good bit more money.

As far as lenses, might look at the new 70-300 f/4-5.6 L. From the inital reports it looks to be as good as the 70-200 f/4 across the range with the extra range ontop. I am certainly drooling after one as I have the current non L 70-300 and its awesome outside of definitely midrange optics and the front element roatating. The L version doesn't have either issue, while retaining the light wieght and overall nice packaging.

from what I've read the 24-105 is great for sharp sharp photos, while the 24-70 isn't as sharp but produces more pleasing photos for some applications. I can't decide myself which is going to be my quality wide zoom.

On the even wider end, I am tempted by the Bower 8mm fisheye. Its stupid cheap and reviews seem all very positive. 180degree FOV on a crop sensor.

I have the 17-40 and 24-105, pleased with both. For travel I favour the 24-105 as It is simply more versatile. The fact it is an f4 is partly compensated by the fact that it has IS (not a lot of use at 24mm, but helpful at 105mm).

With regard to optical performance, you may be right in saying neither lens is "stellar" - but this is relative. As far as I can see they are as good as (and better than some) Canon WA primes, but do not match up to say, the 70-200. I think that this is in the nature of the beast - the optical challenges of WA zooms are just more difficult than tele-zooms.

Of the two I would say the 17-40 is a little sharper, but on a full frame camera, 17mm is really wide and unless this is a style you really like, I would think 24mm is plenty wide enough.

Note that early versions of the 24-105 suffered from an odd "heavenly rays" effect in certain conditions which resulted in some negative reviews. This has been addressed in later models, and Canon did offer a free fix on the early ones.

Cheers

Colin

Combo 17-40 and 7D is great! No need for IS. I think the 18-55 2.8 is too expensive and is sensitive to dust.
On a 5D I would go with the 24-105 as the 17-40 suffers from distortion on FF like Colin said.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1): I am tempted by the Bower 8mm fisheye

I have that for Nikon (The Rokinon branding, same exact construction) and couldn't be more happy with it. Just takes patience in learning to meter with your eyes and the LCD   

Thanks for the reactions!

Quoting ckw (Reply 2): Of the two I would say the 17-40 is a little sharper, but on a full frame camera, 17mm is really wide and unless this is a style you really like, I would think 24mm is plenty wide enough.

Good point, so I can eliminate one camera/lens combination. Also 17-40 isn't too much in terms of range.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1): 7D is a very sweet camera (I own one), but the 5DmkII is just alot more camera unless you absolutely have to have the extra FPS and better AF. Its also a good bit more money.

So I have
7D 17-55f2.8 for about EUR1900
5D2 24-105 for about EUR2500

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1): from what I've read the 24-105 is great for sharp sharp photos,

Quoting johnkrist (Reply 3): I think the 18-55 2.8 is too expensive and is sensitive to dust.

I like sharp photos and I don't like dust, especially inside a lens, but do you have any personal experiences with that?

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 5): but do you have any personal experiences with that?

Not personal, but a friend has one and it was been serviced twice for dust, and we don't really live in a dusty environment. Very little dust even behind a 747 spooling up for T/O   He eventually got rid of it and bought a 10-22 and 24-70.
I was choosing between the 17-40, 24-70 2.8 and 17-55 2.8 when I was looking to replace my old 18-55 kit lens but decided that I rather have f4 and a weather/dust sealed lens than 2.8, and the 24-70 was a bit over budget and not wide enough for 7D. Another thing I really like about the 17-40 is that it's internal zoom, very practical for wing shots.

Edit: editorial

[Edited 2010-11-24 23:19:33]

The 5D2 with the 24-70 is a terrific combo. I cannot think of anything I could critisize about it. Weight is not an issue for me, the heavier the better. It's well worth every cent you spend on it.
I used to have the 17-55 f2,8 on my 40D, it was nice but I don't think I ever had that crazy sharp super detailed results with it. Build quality of the 17-55 is good but still feels like plastic. It isn't a lens I would use wide open with confidence. The 24-70 is like that, no need to think about the quality loss when you open it up.
I wouldn't buy anything that starts at 24 for a crop sensor body. Especially if you're doing non-aviation stuff as well.
24 on ff however is more than interesting enough, just a few mms wider than 17 on a cropbody but those few mms make a huge difference visually. If you're into wider angle views this is something you might appreciate.
Let me know if you wanna see 100% crops for the above mentioned gear.
HGabor

for me the 24-70/2.8L lens is by far the most used lens in my bag. I don't shoot much aviation anymore as I shoot about 50+ weddings a year, as well as a lot of studio work and my 24-70 has more that paid for itself. I've had mine for about 4 years + now and only now have I had to send it in for a service. One of the aperture blades is sticking, thankfully my CPS membership gets the service done quicker. If you want a lens thats going to deliver time after time and with the quality you expect then get the 24-70 you will not be disappointed!! I have two full frame bodies, one has the 70-200/2.8 and the other the 24-70/2.8.

On a side note, if you really want to spoil yourself, the 50/1.2 is just an amazing and so fast!

Have fun

Fergul

I will eventually be upgrading to a full-frame camera (years from now) and my aim is to own the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (or whichever version is out when I upgrade). If you have the funds for it, this is THE best lens Canon makes in wide-angle, hands down, in my opinion.

TIS

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 9): I will eventually be upgrading to a full-frame camera (years from now) and my aim is to own the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (or whichever version is out when I upgrade). If you have the funds for it, this is THE best lens Canon makes in wide-angle, hands down, in my opinion.

That lens is on the top of my wish list. I have the 17-40/4 and love it but boy do I want to get that 16-35/2.8 I need that extra stop down for some of the low light shots!!

Hope to get it next year!

Fergul

Quoting fergulmcc (Reply 8): If you want a lens thats going to deliver time after time and with the quality you expect then get the 24-70 you will not be disappointed!!

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 7): The 5D2 with the 24-70 is a terrific combo.

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 7): 24 on ff however is more than interesting enough, just a few mms wider than 17 on a cropbody but those few mms make a huge difference visually. If you're into wider angle views this is something you might appreciate.

Well, I decided in principle to go for the 5Dii (why not!) and with a lens starting at 24mm. One thing I wonder with the 24-70, did any of you have issues with the curved focus plane? Photozone mentions it and to be honest it was the first time I heard of the phenomenon, but is it really an issue in real life? I'd rather have f2.8 than f4, but you feel it in your back I think! Then again 24-105 would be practical as it would cover most situations in terms of zoom range. I'd then use the 70-200 for faraway stuff.

No, no issue with the 24-70/2.8 on that at all.

With the 17-40/4 yes but then I like that at times and so I use that lens when I want that effect, so to speak.

Fergul