/ Thinging of buying new lenses

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Max Harms on 26 Dec 2012
Merry christmas and happy new year to everyone.

i was wondering if anyone could give me a bit of advice on buying some new lenses for my Canon 7D.

I can either buy a canon EF 17-40 L lens and use it as a replacement for my orginal kit lens or buy a sigma 30mm F1.4 and a Canon EF 60mm Macro lens instead, which roughly add up to the same price.

just wondering what everyones thoughts are and if anyone has had experience with these lenses what are they like.

thanks for any help,

Max
Nadir khan - on 26 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms: I can vouch for the 17-40 L . its a great lens and my main lens when climbing. You'll have to apply crop factor of 1.6 for the 7D . if its mainly climbing you're doing , the limitations of prime lenses could be frustrating
peewee2008 - on 26 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms: As above, the 17-40L is a great lens, you could also get the 50mm 1.8 mk2 for around £70 which is a must for any canon owner, cheap but takes great pics.
Nicholas Livesey on 26 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms: Another vote for the EF 17-40 L, I'm very happy with mine ;)
mole2k - on 27 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms:

I used a 17-40 quite a lot and although I did sell it (sadly due to financial reasons) I sold in the knowledge that I would most likely be buying another one in the future!
Philip on 27 Dec 2012
In reply to peewee2008:
> (In reply to Max Harms) As above, the 17-40L is a great lens, you could also get the 50mm 1.8 mk2 for around £70 which is a must for any canon owner, cheap but takes great pics.

I disagree. I bought a 50/1.8 last week - it's going back. The AF is slow and the build quality is crap. I'm going to upgrade to 60D or wait for new model in Jan maybe and get the 40mm.
mr mills - on 27 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms:

I borrowed a canon 16-35mm mkii and it was great but after reading so many reviews I will go for the 17-40, just upgraded to a 5d mkii so selling my D and my sigma 10-20mm.
peewee2008 - on 27 Dec 2012
In reply to Philip:
> (In reply to peewee2008)
> [...]
>
> I disagree. I bought a 50/1.8 last week - it's going back. The AF is slow and the build quality is crap. I'm going to upgrade to 60D or wait for new model in Jan maybe and get the 40mm.


True, but this is why it's cheap, but it does take goood pictures for such a cheap lens, for portraits it's as good if not better than the 17-40.
badwabbit on 28 Dec 2012
If you want a standard zoom for the 7D, I'd take the 17-55 2.8 IS over the 17-40L any day of the week. Better range, better image quality, stabilisation, constant f2.8 - the only downside is the build quality, which is not up to L standards.

The Siggy 30 is also a great lens and will give you good low light performance - I'd also take that over the 17-40.
Hannes on 28 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms: I'd go with the 17-55 f2.8 over the 17-40 every day as well with the exception if you need the better weather sealing of the 17-40. But even then I'd probably go for the 24-105 first, even on a crop body despite the extra cost and lack of true wide.
Joss - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Max Harms:

They are different lenses for different purposes so I guess if you do more Portraits and Macro- go for the prime lenses. I have seen some excellent photos on the 17-40 mind and its a quality lens. Ive just replaced my Canon kit lens with a Sigma of similar focal length and have been very pleased with its perfomance.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.