Dilemma: <1k budget on lens to match 7d...

[waiyean]

Keep the Tamron, get the 85mm 1.8. You will be happy.

 

[soons]

Mainly weather-sealed and sound.

Now ask yourself this question.
1. Do you really need weather sealing? or it is just a complement with your 7D Body?
2. Can you live with the sound? I prefer faster focusing with loud motor than a slower focusing with a quieter motor though.

For 1 & 2, you gonna pay a pretty huge amount of additional money, do you think 1 & 2 will justify the money to be spent? if yes, go ahead.
Else, learn to uterlise your tamron more.

 

[Minglink]

One more thing which I would appreciate Tamron or 17-55 to have is weather-seal. I do sometimes find myself caught in the rain or in snow overseas (very rare though). Thus, the consideration for my first L. Since 7d and 580 EXII are both weather-sealed already. Lacking the right lens to complete it.

Hi, this is what i am thinking also. So i have make my choice and i be going for my first L lens: 17-40 f4 L. So i will have a complete weather-seal walkabout setup. Even when i am oversea for tour, i wont have to worry too much of rain or snow or sand... :bsmilie:

 

[Shen siung]

A new perspective for capturing my kids growing up. better bokeh, faster auto focusing. shoot in the rain when the kids are running freely around, thus weather-sealed. a longer range, so not so intrusive. Tamron was/is still good. I am likely to keep it. Something to complement it.

You will need a fast lens. To me, now you need to be sure what focal length you like.
50 mm or 85 mm.
50 is a bit tight indoor, IMO.

Now ask yourself this question.
1. Do you really need weather sealing? or it is just a complement with your 7D Body?
2. Can you live with the sound? I prefer faster focusing with loud motor than a slower focusing with a quieter motor though.

For 1 & 2, you gonna pay a pretty huge amount of additional money, do you think 1 & 2 will justify the money to be spent? if yes, go ahead.

I am agree with this - whether could be justify to spend the money.
Just have to spend wisely, within your ability

 

[2evans]

Hi, this is what i am thinking also. So i have make my choice and i be going for my first L lens: 17-40 f4 L. So i will have a complete weather-seal walkabout setup. Even when i am oversea for tour, i wont have to worry too much of rain or snow or sand... :bsmilie:

Fyi, weather sealed != water proof

Also, the 17-40 on it's own is not weather sealed... "The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."

Really, people really worry too much about this kind of stuff. If you're really worried, just get an underwater housing.

 

[silverthorn11]

You will need a fast lens. To me, now you need to be sure what focal length you like.
50 mm or 85 mm.
50 is a bit tight indoor, IMO.

Wouldn't 85mm be tighter? 50mm f1.4 or 85 f1.8? Some have commented before that 50 f1.4 is only marginally better than 50mm f1.8. In my experience, the 50mm f1.8 tends to creep in low light. but at the right aperture, f2.8 and above, the sharpness is comparable with the 50mm f1.4. Is this true?

I am agree with this - whether could be justify to spend the money.
Just have to spend wisely, within your ability

I think from the comments, i will most likely keep my Tamron and possibly a fast prime to complement it. I think I can hold back on the weather-sealed L for now. maybe next year.

Is the new Canon 100mm f2.8L macro suitable for indoors portrait?

 

[lightning]

get a 16-35MII once and for all....and save on future upgrading. If you are on budget then don't get anything cheapo sure regret in future and waste money upgrading. I learn my lesson the hard way. So just save till you have the cash to get something that you really like.

Take photos of kids and etc are just some lame excuses to buy equipment.

 

[silverthorn11]

Fyi, weather sealed != water proof

Also, the 17-40 on it's own is not weather sealed... "The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."

Really, people really worry too much about this kind of stuff. If you're really worried, just get an underwater housing.

I believe a UV filter is assumed in most lens.

 

[lightning]

Wouldn't 85mm be tighter? 50mm f1.4 or 85 f1.8? Some have commented before that 50 f1.4 is only marginally better than 50mm f1.8. In my experience, the 50mm f1.8 tends to creep in low light. but at the right aperture, f2.8 and above, the sharpness is comparable with the 50mm f1.4. Is this true?



I think from the comments, i will most likely keep my Tamron and possibly a fast prime to complement it. I think I can hold back on the weather-sealed L for now. maybe next year.

Is the new Canon 100mm f2.8L macro suitable for indoors portrait?

100 Macro lens is slow in AF...so running kids may have problem. Fast AF...go for 135F2 or 200F2..:thumbsup:

 

[silverthorn11]

get a 16-35MII once and for all....and save on future upgrading. If you are on budget then don't get anything cheapo sure regret in future and waste money upgrading. I learn my lesson the hard way. So just save till you have the cash to get something that you really like.

Take photos of kids and etc are just some lame excuses to buy equipment.

I take photos of kids 80% of my time. It is THE main reason why I got into DSLR photography. I do not think it is lame to capture beautiful memories of my kids as they grow up. Like many here on Clubsnap, we may not have an infinite budget and it takes me a pretty long time before I do upgrade. By the time I save enough for what I really want, I would have missed out all the opportunities to shoot. I can and will live with what I have and buy within my budget.

 

[silverthorn11]

100 Macro lens is slow in AF...so running kids may have problem. Fast AF...go for 135F2 or 200F2..:thumbsup:

Are 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 considered to have fast AF? 135 and 200 might be too long on my cropped 7d.

 

[cancan7]

Think the 17-55 IS doesn't offer that much more than the Tamron to warrant an upgrade. Why not get the 70-200 f4 non-IS? It should fit your budget, and offers a total different focal length to your gear.

Sorry in advance if I repeat any stuff as I didn't read through all the posts

 

[picmaniac]

Are 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 considered to have fast AF? 135 and 200 might be too long on my cropped 7d.

the 85 has faster focus than the 50 1.4 tho the latter is quite fast also but e 50mm suffers from AF which is prone to failure. perhaps can try the sigma 50 1.4. solid lens !

 

[Shen siung]

Wouldn't 85mm be tighter? 50mm f1.4 or 85 f1.8? Some have commented before that 50 f1.4 is only marginally better than 50mm f1.8. In my experience, the 50mm f1.8 tends to creep in low light. but at the right aperture, f2.8 and above, the sharpness is comparable with the 50mm f1.4. Is this true?
?

Oh, I mean 50 mm might tight for indoor, but outdoor is fine; then, 85 mm is even tighter for indoor compare to 50mm

But for certain people, 50 mm is ok for indoor.

 

[Shen siung]

the 85 has faster focus than the 50 1.4 tho the latter is quite fast also but e 50mm suffers from AF which is prone to failure. perhaps can try the sigma 50 1.4. solid lens !

Yes, some CSer talk about AF problems on certain copies of 50f1.4

 

[2evans]

Are 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 considered to have fast AF? 135 and 200 might be too long on my cropped 7d.

The 85 1.8 uses the Ring USM, so it's pretty fast. the 50 1.4 uses the older Micro USM (chain driven) type and there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of the AF motor failing.

 

[lightning]

I take photos of kids 80% of my time. It is THE main reason why I got into DSLR photography. I do not think it is lame to capture beautiful memories of my kids as they grow up. Like many here on Clubsnap, we may not have an infinite budget and it takes me a pretty long time before I do upgrade. By the time I save enough for what I really want, I would have missed out all the opportunities to shoot. I can and will live with what I have and buy within my budget.

One less overseas trip or save on something else would have provided for the budget you need. You already have the Tamron 17-50 it is more then enough to capture the "moment". So the feeling to want to upgrade just to shoot kids is "lame" excuse in a way. You definitely have the time to save. In fact you should have upgrade the Lens instead of camera body. 7D = 16-35MII(in term of cost) and 16-35 give you much better pics on 350D as compared to 7D+17-50.

 

[Minglink]

Fyi, weather sealed != water proof

Also, the 17-40 on it's own is not weather sealed... "The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."

Really, people really worry too much about this kind of stuff. If you're really worried, just get an underwater housing.

When i purchase the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens i will sure get a filter.
BE safe then sorry is my way.
If purely using in Singapore i might not get a L lens.

 

[soons]

Think the 17-55 IS doesn't offer that much more than the Tamron to warrant an upgrade. Why not get the 70-200 f4 non-IS? It should fit your budget, and offers a total different focal length to your gear.

Sorry in advance if I repeat any stuff as I didn't read through all the posts

Actually I am happy that I upgraded from Tamron 17-50mm to Canon 17-55mm IS USM due to my shooting style.

 

[silverthorn11]

One less overseas trip or save on something else would have provided for the budget you need. You already have the Tamron 17-50 it is more then enough to capture the "moment". So the feeling to want to upgrade just to shoot kids is "lame" excuse in a way. You definitely have the time to save. In fact you should have upgrade the Lens instead of camera body. 7D = 16-35MII(in term of cost) and 16-35 give you much better pics on 350D as compared to 7D+17-50.

Point noted. thanks for your inputs. Even with the budget, I would not have considered the 16-35mm. I am sure you are extremely pleased with a 16-35mm and I am sure it is a very very good piece of glass, but the range is just too short for my needs. Not to mention the use of HD video, noise reduction, low light use, etc. You are merely comparing based on IQ and build. But there are other factors involved. Yes, I have made the decision and consideration that the features on a 7d over 20d outweighed the marginal better pics of a 16-35mm over a tamron 17-50. I am not a noob. I do know that a good piece of glass is better than a good body. I am talking about the degree of satisfaction derived from a product over its cost. the old "bang for buck" analysis.

I have friends who have used 16-35mm and the general comment is that it is overpriced for what it delivers. Personally I have not tried it, maybe one day I will. But for now, I am pretty happy with a 7d upgrade with a 17-50mm. I think you might be a little harsh on your "lame" comment. It may be lame to you but not to me.

I really do not travel much, maybe just one family trip a year (one less would be none for each passing year) and since the kids came it has been just nearby places (Malaysia: JB/Penang). Yes, I will take into your consideration to place buying of a great lens over family time travelling together.