A canon lens line-up question....

I have a 50mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm f4L.
My next lens will be a 10-22mm but at the moment I'm using a 17-70 Sigma which surprisingly is pretty damn sharp.

It a great walk around lens and will fill the gap quiet nicely.
 
The old Canon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is actually quite a sharp lens and if you're on a budget that's what I'd go for. If money isn't too tight maybe an f/2.8 zoom.

I've got a 15-30mm and 70-200mm and this lens does the job very nicely.
 
I've just bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to go with my 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f4L, I'm loving it so far.

Next is a fisheye or a 10-22mm ish.


EDIT: what about that Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 in your sig? :lol:
 
See sig ;)

In reality, your four choices are, in increasing order of cost:

15-85, 17-55, 24-105 & 24-70
 
I've got the 15-85. Only used it a couple of times, but have been impressed with it so far. Much cheaper than the 24-70 and 24-105, and more flexible on a crop sensor.
 
How about the 17-50mm or the 28-75mm Tamron? You can pick either up for sub £200 used. I have both and found them to be really sharp and great for indoor or low light.
 
LikeBreathing said:
:plusone:

This is what I decided on to plug the gap between my Canon 10-22 and Canon 70-300. I went for the newer 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro HSM version.
Click to expand...

+1 Cracking lens for the cash. I went for the non OS as I read it was slightly sharper and am over the moon with its IQ.
 
I've heard some good things about the new 15-85 IS. Should be a nice walkabout/general purpose zoom. The 17-55 f/2.8 is definitely better but costs silly money.
 
Some great responses thanks.

I did have the tamron 17-50 non IS which I sold and bougth the sigma 24-70 which seemed to plug the gap on paper better than the 17-50.

If I sell a couple of flashes and the sigma I might just have enough to make parting with silly money for the 17-55f2.8 worth it :)
 
I have a similar line up and the gap is bridged with the Canon 17-55mm, tis a lot of cash, but tried some cheaper alternatives and they weren't as good
 
I wouldn't fill the gap unless I found I needed to... :)

Then I would buy what I needed...

35mm prime would do a nice job - if you need something between 22mm and 50mm that is fast. What will you shoot in that range?
 
RichardtheSane said:
I wouldn't fill the gap unless I found I needed to... :)

Then I would buy what I needed...

35mm prime would do a nice job - if you need something between 22mm and 50mm that is fast. What will you shoot in that range?
Click to expand...

Which prime would you recommend?
Looking for something with good flare suppression...
 
Either a 17-50 Tammy or the Canon 24-105 depending on low light requirement.
 
If you don't use the 10-15mm range much then the 15-85 IS would be a good replacement for the 10-22 AND fill the gap.
 
If the 24-70 f2.8 is too much, why not consider the older 28-70 f2.8 L. I have a copy of this lens and it always blows me away.
 
I got my 15-85 by accident :p

I had intended to stick with long lenses for my 7D, but was offered the 15-85 at a "rude not to" price.

Thus far it has delivered a level of performance that would not disappoint if it was an L lens. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Check my kitbag out, works perfectly for me.
10-22
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
50mm 1.8
300mm 2.8

But not that good on the pocket.
 
I had pretty much the same lineup, 10-22, 50f1.4, 70-200 f4is... filled the gap with 24-105. To be honest, I always favoured 50f1.4 over 24-105.

I would stick with your current lens setup, or upgrade your body. High iso is next on your list from your setup I would say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top