Equipment Suggest a Lens | Canon |

Glad you're learning from this, Cheap.

Personally, I think we're crossing over into technicalities (diffraction limitation? Yeesh...sorry Tim ) that wouldn't impair any one of us. It's great to have the super-OMG setup that COULD take a technically perfect picture, but we all-too-often lose sight in our gear lust of what will take the picture WE want with a realistic balance of cost, weight and quality.

I'll leave it at this - there's a lot of cost difference (over $500 - more than the cost of the lowest priced lens) between even the three 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses you're looking at. They're all good choices, and owning the cheapest out of the bunch, I can assure you that you won't be disappointed with ANY of them. It seems YOU already realized that the full ring-USM offered by the canon isn't that useful for you, which is good. But really, leave diffraction limitations, distortion amounts (I personally LOVE the distortion on my 17-50, it is often used to help add depth to a picture) and MTF charts to the reviewers and figure out what is going to suit your purpose. Try to rent the lenses in question, take 'em for a test shoot and don't think so hard about "what if I upgrade to this/that/the other."

The best lens is the one you use most, and you can't use it if it (or your camera) is too heavy to take with you, doesn't fit your style of shooting much, or you're too weak from starvation after buying all the L-series glass to lift your camera.

 

Diffraction limitation can actually make photos look out of focus if you're using narrow enough apertures, so it's something to bear in mind if you're into landscape photography in particular. I'm not big on MTF charts or anything like that and I do agree with you Brett on figuring out what suits your purpose. With that in mind, I do know that the 7D isn't the camera for me - I was just adding some insight on that point and why I moved to full frame. If you're mostly using apertures wider than F/10, you will not ever come across the softness any more than you would on any other APS-C body.

If landscape photography isn't going to be the main use of your dSLR, then I would wholeheartedly recommend sticking with APS-C sensors - the whole thing is just much more economical and you don't lose a lot in terms of quality (and gain in other areas - AF and burst rate on the 7D being things I really want). The sum of all parts puts things in favour of APS-C, IMO, and with the 7D and D300, there are two simply awesome APS-C bodies on the market.

Frankly, full frame is over-rated in a lot of situations and I don't buy a lot of what people are on about, but there's a reason why most landscape photographers shoot on larger formats. With that said, I'd be crazy to opt for a medium or large format camera myself, as I do want to use my body for other things besides landscapes. Most people do not need a full frame camera though, that's for sure.

 

BTW, just to make life a bit more difficult, Sigma just announced a 17-70/2.8-4 OS HSM

 

yeah, I saw that yesterday. Looks to be a nice range of stops considering it's variable. Set the aperture to f/4 and leave it there. Have to wait for the sharpness to see if it's viable.

 

My 10 bits:
I think you should get a lens solution that suits your personality. I've gone through quite a few lenses over time and I more and more come to wish for a simple but high quality setup.
But then again I've been through the old kit 18-55, Sigma 17-70, Canon 75-300, Canon 10-22 and Canon 50mm 1.8 for me to reach that conclusion.
I think some on this forum went all in to begin with and skipped the cheap lenses... Jumping straight at stuff like the 70-200L.
Speaking from my own experience and if you know you love photography then I'd advise you to skip the "cheap" stuff unless you have the finances to consider it learning steps.
I'm not saying my lenses are useless. They have done very well for me but they just don't go that last notch that I am wanting now.

If the 24-70 is the L then I say go for that instead of other combos. Slowly save up and buy the top stuff when you can afford it. It should also provide you more time to get more familiarized with the individual lens.

 

I'll echo what Ole said, but don't forget, you can still sell lenses and not take that much of a hit later on. If you buy used in the first place, then you take even less of a hit. Ebay is your friend.

 

I dont know what your budget is, but I can honestly (from my POV) could not stress the quality of a Canon L lens. The buggers are fast as hell (on AF, HSM) and image quality is top notch. I have a friend that swears by the 105-200mm, your choice on IS or not cause it moves the F/value around a bit on either series. I would get the IS to be honest, I found it very hand. I have a 24-105 and its a great lens (as Vers can atest).

My 2 cents Happy lens hunting.

And oh, I want a 100-400mm L lens at some point too. Its a big a$$ bugger, but has some awesome telephoto.

 

I'd be more concerned with AF...HSM hasn't been Sigmas strong suite lately--the 24-70HSM and 50/1.4 are good examples of that. IQ, OTOH, doesn't seem to be an issue albeit they are all different lenses But yeah, if they do get it right and if it performs anything like the non-HSM version in terms of IQ with increased AF performance it'll be a killer lens for APS-C.

 

Mines bigger



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx