[nattairoo]

Hi there



I have either the choice to go with the following purchases

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 & Canon 24-70mm or Canon 17-40mm & Canon 24-105mm.



I presently own a Canon EOS 7D and old but still in good nic Canon 1D. Which i dont use but maybe one day i may consider going full frame but i have. I have no plans to go full frame for awhile as very happy with the 7D performance for what i do.



I primarily do rural photography work which includes landscapes and domestic animals portraits and some real estate out in open paddocks where conditions can vary from dusty and hot climates to cold icy, rain and frost on the ground during the winter when out in the field.



I am just wondering in peoples opinion what would be the best combination out of the above to give me for picture quality and value for money.



I do alot of rural landscapes both in low light on first light during the mornings and on sunsets. I would like to also do alot more night landscapes or portraits when we often get full moon over the paddocks which gives off good effects with old old rustic buildings and corals etc in the direct path of the light from the full moon. Which would be the better lens the Canon 17-40mm or the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8? overall for these uses



Also working with cattle, horses and dogs etc sometimes there not the most agreeable so this why also considered the extra zoom length of the 24-105mm in the event i cant get in too close but would i be giving away much in picture quality from the 24-70mm if i went the 24-105mm?.



any advice would be appreciated, many thanks

[wim]

[quote name='nattairoo' timestamp='1280269634' post='1352']

Hi there



I have either the choice to go with the following purchases

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 & Canon 24-70mm or Canon 17-40mm & Canon 24-105mm.[/quote]

Are these both tandem buys? Or is this based on available budget? My quick calcuilations show that either combination costs .about the same

I presently own a Canon EOS 7D and old but still in good nic Canon 1D. Which i dont use but maybe one day i may consider going full frame but i have. I have no plans to go full frame for awhile as very happy with the 7D performance for what i do.

Actually, third-party digital non-fullframe zoom lenses with EOS-mount all work on any Canon camera, just that you will have vignetting at the shorter end of the zoom range, which can be roughly calculated by the crop factor (doesn't always hold exactly, but is a good indicator). The Tokina 11-16 can be used on FF from a little before 16 mm as a 16 mm UWA, and from about 13 mm as an UWA for APS-H (like a 1D series camera).

I primarily do rural photography work which includes landscapes and domestic animals portraits and some real estate out in open paddocks where conditions can vary from dusty and hot climates to cold icy, rain and frost on the ground during the winter when out in the field.

Quite different purposes. Where animals tend to be unpredictable and move a lot, IOW, requiring faster lenses ideally if light is a limiting factor, real estate doesn't generally move <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, so that can be easily shot from a tripod. You'd want fairly small to small apertures in the latter case, so a tripod is the choice for shooting those, and aperture is therefore less of a limiting factor.

I am just wondering in peoples opinion what would be the best combination out of the above to give me for picture quality and value for money.



I do alot of rural landscapes both in low light on first light during the mornings and on sunsets. I would like to also do alot more night landscapes or portraits when we often get full moon over the paddocks which gives off good effects with old old rustic buildings and corals etc in the direct path of the light from the full moon. Which would be the better lens the Canon 17-40mm or the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8? overall for these uses

They actually are mutually excolusive here. The 11-16 on a 7D is an UWA zoom, the 17-40 a short standard zoom. You need to consider whether you need either UWA, or short standard in that case.

Also working with cattle, horses and dogs etc sometimes there not the most agreeable so this why also considered the extra zoom length of the 24-105mm in the event i cant get in too close but would i be giving away much in picture quality from the 24-70mm if i went the 24-105mm?.



any advice would be appreciated, many thanks

I'd really like to know what other lenses you own, actually, in order to establish what you would really need.



The 24-70L obviously has a wider aperture than the 24-105L, no IS, and a shorter zoom range. However, it has much better bokeh than the 24-105L, and th elatter you always had to stop dowm 1/3 of a stop to get the most out of it; F/4 was rather soft, especially at teh longer end. The 24-70L is good allround, although that also improves when stopped down. Ideally you'd want a 24-135 F/2.8, but that isn't an option currently <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Other than for consistency of SOOC of rendering with other L-lenses (colour etc.), I wouldn't actually recommend the 17-40L, basically because it is not really better than any of the APS-C equivalents, and has a rather limited range on an APS-C body. That lens really shines on FF, where it is the UWA zoom it is supposed to be, and IME on FF it is better than the EF-S 10-22 on crop.



Since you probably need an UWA for your landscapes and real estate shots, you will likely need something in the 10-20 mm range. Next for full body shots you will likel need something from 20-50 mm or thereabouts, and for head shots and shots from further away anything from about 50 to about 200 mm. That is what my experience tells me anyway, based on the type of stuff you are shooting / intend to shoot.



The short end doesn't have to be fast, because those are landscape and estate shots, and maybe overviews of entire meadows of horses. The middle end you will probably want faster, due to the fact that you may want to use a high shutter speed as possible for animal portraits. The longer range, because you frighten animals less, can probably be a little less fast (narrower aperture).



What also is important is in how far you'd want to play with DoF. A wider aperture gives you more possibilities here, but in order to maximize this to the full, it likely is better to go full frame, which gains you effectively another ~1.6 stops of less DoF to play with.



Anyway, let me look at the possibilities for the three ranges I suggested so far, on APS-C, just limiting myself to Tokina and Canon, as that is what you suggested yourself.



7D UWA zoom:

Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 (+/- 560 €)

Tokina 12-24 F/4 (+/- 510 €)

Canon EF-S 10-22 (+/- 690 €)



7D fast standardish zoom:

Tokina 16-50 F/2.8 (+/- 550 €)

Canon EF 17-40L (+/- 650 €)

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS (+/- 850 €)

Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L (+/- 1070 €)



7D slow standardish zoom:

Canon EF-S 15-85 F/3.5-F/5.6 IS (+/- 660 €; +/- 580 € if white box)

Canon EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-F/5.6 IS (+/- 120 €)

Canon EF-S 18-135 F/3.5-F/5.6 IS (+/- 380, +/- 290 € in white box)

Canon EF 24-105 F/4L IS (+/- 1040 €)



7D longer zooms

Canon EF-S 55-250 F/4-F/5.6 IS (+/- 220 €)

Canon EF 70-200 F/4L (+/- 570 €)

Canon EF 70-200 F/4L IS (+/- 1000 €)

Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8L (+/- 1060 €)

Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS (+/- 1650 € if you can stil find one)

Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II (+/- 2130 €)

Canon EF 70-300 F/4- F/5.6 IS (+/- 470 €)



Based on requirements and your budget of approximately 1630 € to 1690 €, I would personally opt for the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS, and EF-S 55-250 IS, bringing the total to 1630 €, wel within budget IOW. This would give me the best and fastest available for APS-C in the middle range where I would need it, the best UWA currently available for APS-C (speed less important, but it always is nice to have that extra wide aperture), and a very good longer zoom for when more distance and longer reach is required.



If you really want to go L, I would personally opt for 17-40L, EF-S 60 F/2.8 Macro (+/- 400 €), and 70-200 F/4L, totalling approximately 1620 €, still within budget, and maybe throw in an EF-S 18-55 IS if covering 41 to 59 mm is also important to you, which would bring the total to just over the budget at 1740 €.



The latter combo would lack in the UWA range, although I found I used my 17-40L on APS-C most of the time for landscapes when I still had it, the 70-200 will give you the extra reach at incredible IQ, and the macro is excellent as a portrait lens too, plus it is an ideal lens for portraits, animal or otherwise, short tele landscapes, and architectural details, besides macro that is (I still miss that lens today; the 100 macros on FF are just not the same). This is a combo I personally shot with for a long time, before moving to new generation lenses first, and to mostly primes later.



Having said all this, I did own a 24-105L, and that lens was almost solely used for portrait work on my APS-C bodies, nothing else. However, it isn't really a low light lens; it seems to lose contrast in low light rather rapidly, I found. By the time I got a 24-70L, I already had established a range of L-primes in the same range, and those are just better, and faster too, while you can obviously still close the aperture <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. So I sold it fairly fast after acquiring it, as ti did get very little to no use in my case. Not going the prime route would for me be the only reason to consider it. It is good, but heavy, and still two or more stops short of what good primes can do.



ANyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim

[DonAndre]

From the verdict of the 17-40 test at 15MP.

"Looking a bit beyond the APS-C scope it is worth to mention that the lens didn't perform quite as well during our corresponding full format test so the straight-forward idea of buying it now for an APS-C DSLR and using it at a later stage on a full format DSLR may not be as desirable as it may appear. It also faces stiff competition from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS which is both faster and slightly superior."



What about the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC)? It's much cheaper and does a pretty good job. Together with the Tamron UWA you've got a pretty good and inexpensive package.



Of course if your job requires to have some prestigious equipment, the Tamron 17-50 is a lens almost every amateur has as well.

[Guest]

Why not the sigma 17-55f2.8 ? Klaus test suggest it is quite good relative to the canon and 1/3 less expensive.

[obsoquasi]

It was suggested, that you buy the 55-250mm. Don't do that, this lens isn't worth the plastic it is made out of. Okay, maybe that was a little to harsh a judgement - it's not a REALLY bad lens. But once you have tried the 70-200mm F/4, you will ask yourself, why you didn't buy that in the first place. Personally I'd go for a 17-55mm and the 70-200mm F/4. I have a feeling that we will see some improvements in the ultra-wide to wide-angle segment, that will be compatible to FF. I personally use a EF-S 10-22mm (which I find great, if maybe slightly unsharp), an EF 24-70mm F/2.8 wich (on a APS-C) is "okay" for portraiture on APS-C, but really has an odd range there (38-112mm), and two 70-200mm IS (F/4 and F/2.8) which I love both, but would probably stick to the F/4 if pressed, because F/2.8 isn't really that much different. That's to say, if with F/4 you didn't get enough light, chances are, F/2.8 won't be enough either. But the F/4 is sooo much lighter!

[wim]

[quote name='obsoquasi' timestamp='1280350831' post='1373']

It was suggested, that you buy the 55-250mm. Don't do that, this lens isn't worth the plastic it is made out of. Okay, maybe that was a little to harsh a judgement - it's not a REALLY bad lens. [/quote]

I don't know if you realized it, but I was trying to stick to a budget in my advice. Besides that, this lens is opticlally quite good actually. The build isn't that of an L, but I know many peopel who are very happy with it.

But once you have tried the 70-200mm F/4, you will ask yourself, why you didn't buy that in the first place. Personally I'd go for a 17-55mm and the 70-200mm F/4.

That is a good combo, but possibly leaves out an UWA requirement within budget.

I have a feeling that we will see some improvements in the ultra-wide to wide-angle segment, that will be compatible to FF.

Could you maybe expand this a little further? I don't entirely get what you are trying to say here.

I personally use a EF-S 10-22mm (which I find great, if maybe slightly unsharp), an EF 24-70mm F/2.8 wich (on a APS-C) is "okay" for portraiture on APS-C, but really has an odd range there (38-112mm),

For portraiture that actually is a good range. Short standard to short tele. Group portrait to head shots.

and two 70-200mm IS (F/4 and F/2.8) which I love both, but would probably stick to the F/4 if pressed, because F/2.8 isn't really that much different. That's to say, if with F/4 you didn't get enough light, chances are, F/2.8 won't be enough either. But the F/4 is sooo much lighter!

Agreed, but F/2.8 does give additional possibilities with regard to DoF. Also, bokeh on the F/2.8 is better than on the F/4.



Kind regards, Wim

[obsoquasi]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1280432472' post='1399']

I don't know if you realized it, but I was trying to stick to a budget in my advice. Besides that, this lens is opticlally quite good actually. The build isn't that of an L, but I know many peopel who are very happy with it.



That is a good combo, but possibly leaves out an UWA requirement within budget.



Could you maybe expand this a little further? I don't entirely get what you are trying to say here.



For portraiture that actually is a good range. Short standard to short tele. Group portrait to head shots.

Agreed, but F/2.8 does give additional possibilities with regard to DoF. Also, bokeh on the F/2.8 is better than on the F/4.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



About my "feeling" what concerns the FF UWA line of Canon. If compared to Nikon, Canon really is lagging behind a little and seeing that they are otherwise selling their 5D MkII really well, I am contemplating that they are trying to catch up soon-ish. On canonrumors one hears repeatedly about a 24-70mm F/2.8L IS version for example. However this is all speculation, I am just trying to understand Canon's strategy to lock-in their customers, they certainly can if they can provide an exellent lens selection all through the zoom range, be it FF or APS-C. And if they can do that with the lower price tag (compared to Nikon) then they are sure to make a lot of money.



Your notion of the bokeh of the 70-200mm F/2.8 was interesting, I haven't really thought of it that way.

[wim]

[quote name='obsoquasi' timestamp='1280492359' post='1418']

About my "feeling" what concerns the FF UWA line of Canon. If compared to Nikon, Canon really is lagging behind a little and seeing that they are otherwise selling their 5D MkII really well, I am contemplating that they are trying to catch up soon-ish. On canonrumors one hears repeatedly about a 24-70mm F/2.8L IS version for example. [/quote]

IMO, that is largely internet hype. The only thing Canon hasn't got an answer to yet is the 14-24 F/2.8, which is an excellent lens. Besides that, Canon does have a 14 F/2.8L which Nikon can't match, plus a TS-E 17L, 24L II, TS-E 24L II, 35L, 50L. So all depends on how you look at this.



Zoom wise, the 24-70 is also due for replacement, and there are some being tested in the field right now. If the 70-200 F/2.8L IS II is a harbinger of things to come, it'll likely be very good.



Furthermore, Nikon only recently started to try and get a corner in the market where Canon is very strong: slower (and lighter) professional zoom lenses. So where one appears to be lagging behind, the other has an advantage, and vice versa.



No big deal to me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

However this is all speculation, I am just trying to understand Canon's strategy to lock-in their customers, they certainly can if they can provide an exellent lens selection all through the zoom range, be it FF or APS-C. And if they can do that with the lower price tag (compared to Nikon) then they are sure to make a lot of money.

They actually have, and they actually do. IOW, their strategy, whatever ti is, does seem to work <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Your notion of the bokeh of the 70-200mm F/2.8 was interesting, I haven't really thought of it that way.

Well, I myself prefer primes, but that certainly is something that always caught my eye with photographs taken with the F/2.8 versions of this lens. It's not as if you can't take photographs with good bokeh with the slower siblings, but the F/2.8s are just a tad better in this regard, even at F/4. And for really good bokeh, well, you do need to go the prime route <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='obsoquasi' timestamp='1280492359' post='1418']

About my "feeling" what concerns the FF UWA line of Canon. If compared to Nikon, Canon really is lagging behind a little and seeing that they are otherwise selling their 5D MkII really well, I am contemplating that they are trying to catch up soon-ish. On canonrumors one hears repeatedly about a 24-70mm F/2.8L IS version for example. However this is all speculation, I am just trying to understand Canon's strategy to lock-in their customers, they certainly can if they can provide an exellent lens selection all through the zoom range, be it FF or APS-C. And if they can do that with the lower price tag (compared to Nikon) then they are sure to make a lot of money.



Your notion of the bokeh of the 70-200mm F/2.8 was interesting, I haven't really thought of it that way.

[/quote]

It is an internet myth, the continuous repeating that compared to Nikon, Canon really lags behind. That "argument" has been repeated year after year after year.



Reality however is different.



The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L IS USM II is better in certain areas than the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. The Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM had no competition from Nikon. The new Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR is not better than the Canon either, resolution wise they are comparable, concerning CA and especially distortion the Canon is better.

The Canon 17mm and 24mm tilt shift lenses are very very good, the Nikon 24mm tilt shift lens does not reach their quality.

The Canon 24mm f1.4 and Nikon 24mm f1.4 are both very good, where the Nikon, by some accounts, has some AF issues.

Only the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 has no Canon equivalent, and in sharpness it is a very good lens.



It has been Nikon who has been playing catch up (with the 24mm TS lens, the 16-35mm VR f4, the 24mm f1.4). And the 14-24mm, which is a new class, where before only the Sigma 12-24mm lens resided.