Hi Guys, Need some help with this pricey decision. I will be using the 7D primarily for video and want to get one good walk around lens. I will be using the camera mainly for personal family videos as I use an EX1 for work. The two lenses that I have narrowed it down to are the Canon 35mm 1.4L or the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Getting 7D tomorrow & can't decide between 2 lenses
- Thread starter Neild
- Start date
Kamizanate
Active member
If you are just using it for family videos, I would see it making much more sense to get the zoom lens. For simple home footage do you really need the extra speed on the lens for that shallower DoF? 2.8 still isn't terribly slow.
Not to mention, it seems like you would want quick control over your ability to zoom, in order to catch fun moments on the fly.
Not to mention, it seems like you would want quick control over your ability to zoom, in order to catch fun moments on the fly.
I think Kamizanate is exactly right. You mentioned wanting a good "walk-around lens," and that 24-70 is pretty much the definition of the perfect walk-around lens. Sure, a 35mm 1.4 would be amazing, but buying only that would be like buying a knife without a fork or a spoon.
Go for the 24-70 zoom. It'll give you a lot of flexibility for those fun family moments. You can always buy fast primes later if you want to start using the 7D for work.
Go for the 24-70 zoom. It'll give you a lot of flexibility for those fun family moments. You can always buy fast primes later if you want to start using the 7D for work.
dandobi.com
Active member
20-70 without a doubt ... even in an indoor (low light) situation, you'll STILL be able to get a really good exposure. no point in gettin' a prime when your camera is GREAT in low light
Michael_Richard
Active member
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
LIGHTER, IS, L Glass, Sharp, Cheaper, good DOF, more range
LIGHTER, IS, L Glass, Sharp, Cheaper, good DOF, more range
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
For the 7D, I'd go with the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S lens, if you want an all-purpose walkaround lens. It's fast, sharp and well-regarded, even if it's not an "L" series lens.
dust'n the callipygous
Well-known member
24mm isn't very wide on a crop body either
KeithAndrews.TV
Well-known member
If you aren't using the camera for paying jobs, then just get EF-S lenses. Why spend the extra money on EF glass. By definition a walk-around lens would be something versatile enough to be able to shoot moderately wide shots and moderately close shots. To me this would mean only one lens for you and the 7D, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It's equivilent to a 27-88mm lens on a full frame body which essentially is the walk-around choice for full-frame. It's a bit expensive, but can probably be had for around $1000. Constant aperture at f/2.8 is nice and fast, plus built-in image stabilization which will come in handy on the farther end of the focal length. Isn't as large, or as heavy as the EF counterparts either which you will appreciate after a long day of lugging the camera around.
I just put in my order for the 24-70mm f/2.8, and bBased on what you are saying, I'd definitely go with the zoom!
The focus ring is VERY good for not being manual. I just played with one again today and I feel completely safe with my decision for it being my run and gun lens, but I think it will even work as a VERY decent variable prime with a follow focus!
If you need super low light... then maybe the 35mm is the winner. 35mm is definitely the most versatile focal length IMO. Perhaps try to pick up an old 50mm f/1.4 to compliment the zoom? However, you are stuck in 35mm and while very versatile, a prime is really not a "walk around". You might get similar DoF out of the zoom on the long end.
Here is a little rambling about the zoom, the way I see it. Keep in mind I just placed my order for one so I may be a bit biased:
[self assuring rant] The range doesn't reach very wide. But, you could later pick up a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and be completely set for interiors! It goes for $600 and it is phenomenal!
Even if you had to wait, 24mm is quite wide. It isn't enough for wide establishing shots in medium to small rooms, but you can't get everything in one lens for $1,300.
24mm is significantly wider than 35mm! Much wider FOV. The distortion is still very decent at 24mm. So you don't really have to worry that much about using it full wide a lot if you need to. Just avoid the shots that really point out distortion or zoom in and pull back a little for those, if possible.
I found a bunch of examples on an APS-C sensor of the wide end of the zoom on Flickr. Here are a few:
24mm (f/2.8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3882931239/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
24mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3841695949/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
Then, distortion seems to become very low starting at 35mm based on reviews. A few examples from Flickr:
35mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2801823562/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
40mm (f/6.7) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3880931830/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
43mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2793995784/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
And based on reviews, there is only a little bit of pincushion at the long end.
Again from Flickr:
70mm (f/8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2793234727/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
And, I was thinking... If you plan to downconvert 1080p to 720p to get rid of aliasing... as some may be considering for critical stuff and just treat this as a 720p camera... Then, then you could also try to correct the little distortion when the shots makes it evident on the same pass! Just a thought. We'd have to see the results are noticeably softer, but definitely worth trying if you are already wanting to do something else to the image.
You won't see distortion it in most shots anyway. Just avoid close ups on the wide end, but that is common sense. And you shouldn't be forced to use 24mm for CU, or you are filming in a VERY small room!
25mm (f/2.8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3908531475/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
The zoom also packs a punch in terms of Macro capabilities. It may not be a Macro, but take a look at this:
70mm (f/2.8) on a 40D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brokenlens/3952127939/in/pool-24-70l
The DoF provided by f/2.8 will be plenty shallow for the "feature" look.
The DoF limitation, the way I see it, means you can't get a portrait with a nice and clear serving of OOF on the subject, not even their shoulders really. There will be fall-off there, but not very pronounced.
However, you can easily get a beautiful and completely OOF background. All you need is just a few feet in between the subject to the background. f/2.8 with a S35-ish sensor provides plenty of separation.
Low-light-ability-wise, you gain two stops with the 35mm! But, this may be something to consider based on what camera you are coming from. If you come from a 500-ISO camera, keep in mind that you can get "decent" results up to 1600-ISO with the 7D, depending on your requirements. You are sure to get good results up to 800-ISO, and probably superb results around 640-ISO which is twice as sensitive as an HVX-200.
If you have only enough for one I'd go with the zoom, for sure. Just so you know I am also tight. In fact, I am getting only one more lens now and that is an 85mm f/1.4, so technically I had to make the same decision you face. Eventually I will get the Tokina 11-16, but again those don't help one or the other, they are both lenses that cover other areas. My fourth lens would be a 35mm f/1.4 though. I don't own a lot of lights, but I do have a pair of Kinos which helps me a tad. Also I would rent for big projects.
I hope however, that f/2.8 won't be prohibitive in available light. But looking at Phillip Bloom's video, it seems he wasn't always wide open either. As a matter of fact, I think he may have said on a thread that he stopped down a little some times.
I am sure you saw it but here is the article: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/07/dublins-people-shot-on-a-canon-7d-in-native-24p/[/self assuring rant]
The focus ring is VERY good for not being manual. I just played with one again today and I feel completely safe with my decision for it being my run and gun lens, but I think it will even work as a VERY decent variable prime with a follow focus!
If you need super low light... then maybe the 35mm is the winner. 35mm is definitely the most versatile focal length IMO. Perhaps try to pick up an old 50mm f/1.4 to compliment the zoom? However, you are stuck in 35mm and while very versatile, a prime is really not a "walk around". You might get similar DoF out of the zoom on the long end.
Here is a little rambling about the zoom, the way I see it. Keep in mind I just placed my order for one so I may be a bit biased:
[self assuring rant] The range doesn't reach very wide. But, you could later pick up a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and be completely set for interiors! It goes for $600 and it is phenomenal!
Even if you had to wait, 24mm is quite wide. It isn't enough for wide establishing shots in medium to small rooms, but you can't get everything in one lens for $1,300.
24mm is significantly wider than 35mm! Much wider FOV. The distortion is still very decent at 24mm. So you don't really have to worry that much about using it full wide a lot if you need to. Just avoid the shots that really point out distortion or zoom in and pull back a little for those, if possible.
I found a bunch of examples on an APS-C sensor of the wide end of the zoom on Flickr. Here are a few:
24mm (f/2.8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3882931239/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
24mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3841695949/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
Then, distortion seems to become very low starting at 35mm based on reviews. A few examples from Flickr:
35mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2801823562/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
40mm (f/6.7) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3880931830/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
43mm (f/8.0) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2793995784/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
And based on reviews, there is only a little bit of pincushion at the long end.
Again from Flickr:
70mm (f/8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/2793234727/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
And, I was thinking... If you plan to downconvert 1080p to 720p to get rid of aliasing... as some may be considering for critical stuff and just treat this as a 720p camera... Then, then you could also try to correct the little distortion when the shots makes it evident on the same pass! Just a thought. We'd have to see the results are noticeably softer, but definitely worth trying if you are already wanting to do something else to the image.
You won't see distortion it in most shots anyway. Just avoid close ups on the wide end, but that is common sense. And you shouldn't be forced to use 24mm for CU, or you are filming in a VERY small room!
25mm (f/2.8) on a 10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3908531475/sizes/l/in/set-72157606930696838/
The zoom also packs a punch in terms of Macro capabilities. It may not be a Macro, but take a look at this:
70mm (f/2.8) on a 40D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brokenlens/3952127939/in/pool-24-70l
The DoF provided by f/2.8 will be plenty shallow for the "feature" look.
The DoF limitation, the way I see it, means you can't get a portrait with a nice and clear serving of OOF on the subject, not even their shoulders really. There will be fall-off there, but not very pronounced.
However, you can easily get a beautiful and completely OOF background. All you need is just a few feet in between the subject to the background. f/2.8 with a S35-ish sensor provides plenty of separation.
Low-light-ability-wise, you gain two stops with the 35mm! But, this may be something to consider based on what camera you are coming from. If you come from a 500-ISO camera, keep in mind that you can get "decent" results up to 1600-ISO with the 7D, depending on your requirements. You are sure to get good results up to 800-ISO, and probably superb results around 640-ISO which is twice as sensitive as an HVX-200.
If you have only enough for one I'd go with the zoom, for sure. Just so you know I am also tight. In fact, I am getting only one more lens now and that is an 85mm f/1.4, so technically I had to make the same decision you face. Eventually I will get the Tokina 11-16, but again those don't help one or the other, they are both lenses that cover other areas. My fourth lens would be a 35mm f/1.4 though. I don't own a lot of lights, but I do have a pair of Kinos which helps me a tad. Also I would rent for big projects.
I hope however, that f/2.8 won't be prohibitive in available light. But looking at Phillip Bloom's video, it seems he wasn't always wide open either. As a matter of fact, I think he may have said on a thread that he stopped down a little some times.
I am sure you saw it but here is the article: http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/07/dublins-people-shot-on-a-canon-7d-in-native-24p/[/self assuring rant]
Luis Caffesse
Admin
I'll second that emotion.
Given the crop factor a 17-55 is going to be much more useful to you than a 28-70mm.
Especially if your main subject matter is going to be people (who I assume will be in your vicinity...not far enough away that you'll really need the reach of the 70mm which will be the equivalent FOV of a 112mm)
Either way, I think you've gotten some solid advice - for a 'walking around' lens, I would definitely consider a zoom before a prime.
I feel very strongly for the 17-55mm f/2.8 too.
I considered it for a long time and the quality of the samples is amazing. But, it only covers APS-C and not full frame. Coupled with slightly weaker construction and the very small dust issue the resale of the 24-70 has to be better, at least easier. I should also point out that I have the need for portrait more than the need for wides, and that there is a second purpose for the Tokina which is to scout for my feature which will use the Duclos PL Tokina as the widest lens in the kit. We won't build interiors so super wide angle like the Tokina is a must. I also hope to get a full frame DSLR some time in the future. Eventually, but the desire for full frame is there for me.
Probably all things I should have said before I went off like that.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) Yea, if you want the best "walk around" for APS-C, then the 17-55mm is the real deal and a little cheaper. HOWEVER, I didn't test out the all important focus ring, which is supposed to be inferior to the 24-70mm's. That could be a BIG deal depending on how it actually feels in your hand for motion.