Canon 7D Mark II kit lens (Page 2): I agree with your suggestions except for the 18-200mm. I have a good copy, but I wouldn't recommend it over the other lenses you mention. If the OP...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ecar wrote:

Your never going to get an "L" lense thr... (show quote)

I agree with your suggestions except for the 18-200mm. I have a good copy, but I wouldn't recommend it over the other lenses you mention. If the OP just wanted it for occasional workaround use that would be one thing. But if he's looking for a lens to sit on his camera, its not the best choice. While a decently sharp lens, primarily in the center, it has high levels of chromatic aberration and very high levels of barrel distortion, of a type not easily corrected in post processing. Additionally, its resolving power will not do the new 7D2's sensor full justice. It also has a relatively slow and noisy focus motor, a just so-so build with lots of lens creep, and it lacks full time manual focus and a decently damped focus ring. I occasionally still use mine when having the large focal range is more of a priority than quality. But, to leave that lens on a great new body like the 7D2 all the time would be a waste. There are so many better choices.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

mwsilvers wrote:

Actually, the 35mm equivalent angle of view of 24mm on a Canon crop body is 38.4, rounded to 38mm. I assume your 28mm reference was just a typo.

Canon does not adjust the spec's on their lenses. They are the actual specifications of the lens itself. They are actual already spec'd out to full frame spec's. Therefore, unless you are dealing with a full frame camera, you have to adjust for the crop factor. The L lens (EF) you refer to (24-105) is just that on a full frame camera. On a crop frame camera, such as the 7D or the 7D II, you have to multiply the crop (1.6) to get the equivalent, 28mm.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Actually the 24 is multiplied by 1.6, so it becomes like a 37-38 on the 7DII. Not as good as something wide but you can zoom out by stepping back. I just shot a big party with the 7D and 24-105 and it all worked out well.

I would take either the 15-85 or 17-85 EFS lenses over the 18-135 as they are built better and offer, in my opinion, better quality images. All three options give you a better wide angle than the 24-105 although none offer the same image quality. All 4 lenses are good options.

ecar wrote:

Your never going to get an "L" lense thr... (show quote)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

ecar wrote:

Canon does not adjust the spec's on their lenses. They are the actual specifications of the lens itself. They are actual already spec'd out to full frame spec's. Therefore, unless you are dealing with a full frame camera, you have to adjust for the crop factor. The L lens (EF) you refer to (24-105) is just that on a full frame camera. On a crop frame camera, such as the 7D or the 7D II, you have to multiply the crop (1.6) to get the equivalent, 28mm.

Your math is faulty. 24 x 1.6 = 38.4, not 28.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

mwsilvers wrote:

Yes, but its not terribly wide on a crop body. The OP might also consider the Canon 15-85mm.

To ad to my previous comment, you'd think that Canon would spec out their listed lens spec's for the camera it was destined to work with, for example, an EF lens was designed for the full frame camera, and the EF-S for the crop frame. But, the EF lenses also fit the crop frame, while the EF-S will not work on the full frame camera's. Nevertheless, the listed focal length/view angle is full frame spec's. Even the EF-S spec's must be adjusted for a crop frame camera. A 7D with a crop of 1.6, when the EF-S - 18-135 lens is used, becomes 28.8mm-216mm. An EF-S lens will not fit or work on a full frame camera, but if it did, it would be the listed/shown spec without adjusting.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

ecar wrote:

To ad to my previous comment, you'd think that Can... (show quote)

The focal length is the same whether the lens is on a crop sensor or a full frame. Canon's designation is accurate. What changes is the viewing perspective.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

LFingar wrote:

Your math is faulty. 24 x 1.6 = 38.4, not 28.

Yep, your right, it is 38.4. Was thinking of a different lens when I wrote that!!

Thanks

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

AntonioReyna wrote:

Actually the 24 is multiplied by 1.6, so it become... (show quote)

As pointed out, my math was bad on the 1.6 X 24. Was thinking of the 18-135 while talking about the 24-105.

I agree, the 15-85 & 17-85 would probably be better than the 18-135, but alot of times you can't get them as a kit lens.

The 18-135 is not the end of the world though, and you do have the zoom. When comparing it to the others, it's not that bad. I have the 15-85, 18-135, 18-200 EF-S lenses. I also have the 24-105, 16-35 (f2.8), 24-70 (f2.8) in L lenses.

The 18-135 is liveable, if that's all you have. And I don't think it's as bad as some do.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ecar wrote:

To ad to my previous comment, you'd think that Can... (show quote)

Canon does not change the lens specs for crop lenses for a very good reason. That's because the the focal length of a lens is not dependent on the body it's mounted on. In other words, 18mm on a crop body is equal to 18mm on s full frame body regardless of how the image produced looks. Its the sensor size that gives the impression that a lens mounted on a crop body is different than on a full frame body. The lens itself does not change its focal length. Thats the reason we speak of an a 35mm equivalent angle of view. The only difference between crop designed lenses like Canon EFs lenses is their smaller image circle which is designed for the smaller crop sensor. That's also the main reason that you usually cannot successfully use crop designed lenses on a FF body. The smaller image circle of those lenses will cause intolerable vignetting when used on a FF body.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

LFingar wrote:

The focal length is the same whether the lens is on a crop sensor or a full frame. Canon's designation is accurate. What changes is the viewing perspective.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

ecar wrote:

The 18-135 is not the end of the world though

The 18-135 is liveable, if that's all you have. And I don't think it's as bad as some do.

ecar, It's important to note that the 18-135 is being offered as a kit with both the 70d and the 7ll because both of those cameras have the dual pixel AF video features and the new lens is designed for video. It has the special IS and the STM focus motors, neither of which can be heard in the video soundtrack. NONE of the current L lenses or non-STM lenses offers these features.
So if you will be doing a lot of video, then that lens becomes of primary importance, above and beyond IQ or build!! ;-)
SS

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SharpShooter wrote:

ecar, It's important to note that the 18-135 is be... (show quote)

:thumbup: Exactly. And that why the discerning photographer will invest in multiple lenses to meet various requirements.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

mwsilvers wrote:

I agree with your suggestions except for the 18-20... (show quote)

I likewise must have a good copy of the 18-200. I haven't had any trouble with using it or seen any of the problems mentioned. I guess it may have something to do with the way I use it. It covers a very wide field of view range. I do think that the 18-135 is a better pic quality lens though. Like others, I have several lenses. For someone starting out, the 18-135 would do the most, and is offered mostly for a kit lens.

Sharpshooter has listed several reasons in favor of the 18-135.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ecar wrote:

I likewise must have a good copy of the 18-200. I haven't had any trouble with using it or seen any of the problems mentioned. I guess it may have something to do with the way I use it. It covers a very wide field of view range. I do think that the 18-135 is a better pic quality lens though. Like others, I have several lenses. For someone starting out, the 18-135 would do the most, and is offered mostly for a kit lens.

Sharpshooter has listed several reasons in favor of the 18-135.

The 7DII is really not a camera for "someone starting out. It is a professional quality crop frame body and should be mated with good glass. I use my 18-200 for non critical stuff. If you're happy with your copy, terrific, but if you read the numerous reviews done on it over the years, with examples, you'll quickly see its limitations. As an example, the chromatic aberration is extreme and very visible. That doesn't make it a bad lens, merely a mediocre one, and you won't get the best from a 7DII with it attached.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

mwsilvers wrote:

The 7DII is really not a camera for "someone ... (show quote)

Yes, I consider it a professional "crop frame" camera. But then again I don't need to ask which lens should be used. EF-S lenses have their limitations. If you read what I wrote, I suggested the 18-135 would be fine, but would prefer the 15-85 or 17-85. The 18-200 was another option.

Anyone buying the 7d II is buying a pro camera. But that doesn't mean that they're not a newbe, or new to the field. Most regular's here wouldn't need to ask about which lens they'd use, most have their own seasoned opinion.

I've seen the same remarks regarding the 18-135, that you make regarding the 18-200. And I seen scathing remarks on some the L lenses also. Your entitled to your opinion, me to mine. But they don't pair the Pro L lenses with the new 7d II, they're pairing the EF-S lenses.