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!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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.
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.
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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
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
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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.
On a 5D I would go with the 24-105 as the 17-40 suffers from distortion on FF like Colin said.
-
- captainstefan
- Posts: 338
- Joined:
-
- Buyantukhaa
- Posts: 2342
- Joined:
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
Thanks for the reactions!
Good point, so I can eliminate one camera/lens combination. Also 17-40 isn't too much in terms of range.
So I have
7D 17-55f2.8 for about EUR1900
5D2 24-105 for about EUR2500
I like sharp photos and I don't like dust, especially inside a lens, but do you have any personal experiences with that?
| 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?
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
| 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]
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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
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
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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
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
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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
TIS
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
| 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
-
- Buyantukhaa
- Posts: 2342
- Joined:
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
| 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.
RE: 7D Vs 5D2 And Corresponding Lenses
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
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests