Lens for 7D?

<p>Just replaced my 50D with a 7D, now I am considering to replace my lens for better ones.</p>

<p>I like to shoot landscape and portrait.<br>

What I have right now:</p>

<p>Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM f/CANON<br>

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX-DC HSM f/CANON EOS<br>

Canon 50mm F1.8 Mark I</p>

<p>What I am considering:</p>

<p>A: One of these: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II, Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro, Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8<br>

B: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X<br>

C: Canon 70-200 F4<br>

D: Canon 85mm F1.8<br>

For A, I am seriously considering Tamron as it is cheaper than Canon, and it is sharper than Sigma (http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48654)<br>

If I have A, do I really need B?<br>

If I have C, do I really need D?,<br>

or I can go with A + B + C, or A+B+D?</p>

<p>Recommendations?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If it were me, I'd buy the Canon EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM: sharp wide open, focuses ultra fast & silent and the IS feature is worth its weight in gold. I've suffered compatibility problems with all my Sigmas and wouldn't recommend one.</p>

<p>The Tammy is a good buy if you're really tight with money and IQ is your main concern over other features. I found its slow focus and wildly spinning MF ring during AF counterproductive. It feels a bit cheap for such an expensive optic.</p>

<p>My 17-55 2.8 IS USM review:<br>

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm</p>

<p>Thanks for the fast reply, I actually meant the VC version of Tamron: </p>

<h2>SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF)</h2>

<p>Here we go again, a poor guy spends close to 2 grand on a Canon camera and the first lenses on the list are Sigma and Tokina.</p>

<p>yes to all. 11-16mm is very different than 17mm. Also 1.8 on the 85mm is also a big difference from f/4 on the 70-200mm; more than 2 stops faster, that's doubling shutter speed twice. However, for the budget conscience, the 17-50mm and 70-200mm is a great combo. I personally have the 17-40mm f/4L and a 70-200mm f/4L with a 50mm f/1.8 and I don't find that I'm really misiing anything. If you shoot a lot of portraits, the 85mm may be nice, but you can always zoom with your feet with the 50mm. From personal experience, the one thing I feel I'm missing, or that I wish I had, is a 400mm lens. My 70-200mm is awesome, but I do a lot of wildlife and birds and a 400mm sure would be nice.</p>

<p>If you've got the Sigma 10-20 why would you want the Tokina 11-16?</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50 non-VC is said to have slightly better IQ than the newer VC version. Couple that with the 70-200 f/4 L IS and you'll definitely be better off than continuing with your Sigma 18-250, unless you need 201-250. If you can get the EF-S 17-55 and the EF 70-200 then probably better still. Do you shoot the 18-250 very often in the 201-250 range? Would you miss that range if you didn't have it?</p>

<p>If you buy the 70-200 f/4 you probably don't need the 85 f/1.8 unless you find your self in the situation where you need 85 faster than f/4. Only you know if you like shallow DOF that 1.8 can get you. Do you shoot many portraits with your 50 1.8 open wider than f/4?</p>

<p>Rather than scrapping one whole kit and replacing it with another whole kit you might want to try shifting one item at a time.</p>

<p>I would imagine that you're lowest quality lens is the Sigma 18-250. So, that is probably the best place to start upgrading. You'll probably want to replace that with two lenses rather than with one. From the lenses you listed that would mean buying the Tamron 17-50/Sigma 18-50/Canon 17-55 and the Canon 70-200 f/4.</p>

<p>After that you will know whether you need the 85 and whether you should switch out your ultra-wide.</p>

<p>DS Meador</p>

<p>The only lens I can easily recommend from your list is the EF 85 1.8</p>

<p>The others, not really at all. I have a 7D (and a 40D and an EOS 3) and love the 85mm (ans also LOVE the 70-200 2.8).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Here we go again, a poor guy spends close to 2 grand on a Canon camera and the first lenses on the list are Sigma and Tokina.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good call Harry!</p>

<p>Can I add to this, just want to throw out I also have a 7D and I'm curious too hear what this community would recommend for close and environmental portraits?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious too hear what this community would recommend for close and environmental portraits?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon EF <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 USM for close and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM and a super-wide zoom for environmental portraiture. That would be my suggestion, but you will probably hear dozens of different kit recommendations here.</p>

<p>My vote is for EF 85 1.8, Always my choise to make medium shots -portrait-</p>

<p>Actually I use it in full frame and cropped ... 70-200 is my other friend to go</p>

<p>Mike - why did you buy the 7D? One reason I ask is that if I had been in the same position I would have upgraded the Sigma 18-250 before upgrading the camera - unless the 7D gives you specific functionality the 50D did not (yes, I normally hate this sort of after-the-fact advice but your decision process can point to what you are looking for).<br>

Do you have a specific reason for wanting each of those lenses or are you creating a collection of what you think you may need?</p>

<p>To your questions of combination: the 17-xx and the 11-16 are quite different lenses. The 17-xx will give you the same coverage as 28mm on a 35mm film camera and for decades that was considered by professionals as plenty wide enough for landscapes. The 11-16 range can be difficult to master but does produce stunning shots when used correctly. So think about how often you have have been in a situation where you thought 'I wish I had a wider lens'. If it is once a year, is the cost worth it? FWIW the Sigma is a very viable alternative to the Tokina and gets strong reviews.</p>

<p>If you have the 70-200 (I presume you mean f4L IS?), then whether you need the 85mm f1.8 will depend on whether you need to create a shallow depth of field. But why the 85mm? If your perception of the need for 85mm is because it is a 'classic portrait lens', then bear in mind it is a classic portrait lens <em>on the 5D </em>which is a 35mm sensor. Your 50mm will give about the same focal equivalent on the 7D and you still have f1.8 to go to. By the way, as you have the 50mm f1.8 I think the 50mm f1.4 would (for me) be a low priority unless, again, you need the f1.4 or the specific blur it gives to out-of-focus areas.</p>

<p>In my opinion if you need to ask these questions then you probably don't need the 10-xx or the 85mm. Yet.</p>

 

<p>Nice one Harry and Ken, I'm sure the original poster enjoyed being insulted when he came back to read the replies</p>

<p>Thanks everyone, especially Harry and Ken :-)<br>

So, if I don't give the list to you, what lens you guys recommend?<br>

I want to replace me lens one by one.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

<p>BTW to answer DS's question, I don't shoot 201-250 very often.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Puppy, I know 17-55mm is the best among these 3, but the price is also 300 more. ;-) but if it is really worth it, I can still consider it.</p>

 

<p>I wonder what is wrong with Sigma and Tamron, they make excellent lenses. I have several L lens, several non L lens from Canon, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 35 f/2.0, and the 20 f/2.8, I also have several lens from Sigma, the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Sigma 400 f/5.6 telemacro, and the Sigma 15mm fisheye. I have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75. I have the Tokina 17mm f/3.5. I think they are all excellent lenses, the one that would be at the end of the line would be a Canon the 20mm. I think too many of us get to thinking that only one company has the ability to make a great lens. One has to do a search to get an idea of what lens may be best suited for what one wants to do, i.e., Photozone.de , fredmiranda.com , and certaintly here at photo.net</p>

<p>Get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Canon 85/1.8</p>

<p>I have this combo with the 7D and S10-20 and I'm happy with it.</p>

<p>The Sigma ultrawide is fine for now, no need for the Tokina unless you really need speed at the wide end. Most folks don't.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>Get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Canon 85/1.8<br>

I have this combo with the 7D and S10-20 and I'm happy with it.<br>

The Sigma ultrawide is fine for now, no need for the Tokina unless you really need speed at the wide end. Most folks don't.</p>

<p> </p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>You mean the non VC version?</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have the non-VC version because it was the only one available at the time. If you can afford the VC version, then go for it.</p>

<p><em>((De-duped))</em></p>

<p><em>I wonder what is wrong with Sigma and Tamron, they make excellent lenses. </em></p>

<p>Really? Sigma and Tamron make better lenses than Canon's L's? Really? Even the non-L's like the 85 1.8 -- Sigma and Tamron are better? LOL. DSLRs are ephemeral -- they are just image capturing computers. Lenses are close to forever -- don't scrimp. There you have it -- my philosophy in 3 sentences that's likely to offend someone. (I've owned a couple Sigma lenses and was HAPPY they day they disappeared, no regrets in them not in my bag anymore... what was I thinking? I wish someone gave me straight talk then)<br>

<br />Why sugarcoat stuff -- not in my bag. If something is better then say it. These tyro lens questions get asked over and over and over again. Just call it straight out rather than a laundry list of 10 lenses and the pros & cons of each and the OP is in a bigger quandary that when he started, LOL.</p>

 

<p>Out of the options in section A, the only one with which I'm familiar is the Canon 17-55. It is a very, very good lens; optically, it's at least the equal of the 17-40/4L USM I replaced with it, and it holds its own against other L zooms I have. Is it better than the third-party options? That I can't tell you, but I'd be surprised if any of them were significantly better.</p>

 

<p>If you have A, you still need B unless you want to lose the ultrawide angles that your 10-22 gives you. But you told us you already have B. What's wrong with the 10-22? I've never used it, but it has a very good reputation (and, like the 17-55, its optical formula more closely resembles an L zoom than a consumer zoom). The f/2.8 lens, of course, is faster, but you say you shoot landscapes and portraits. Landscapes are usually not shot wide open anyway, and an ultrawide zoom is not a typical lens for portraiture. And if you have a 17-55/2.8, then replacing the 10-22 with an f/2.8 ultrawide really only speeds up the wide end, where the f/2.8 lens is only slightly faster than the 10-22 anyway; if you need an f/2.8 lens in the 17-22 range, use the 17-55. So unless you can articulate why the 10-22 is inadequate, I have to say you don't need to replace it.</p>

 

<p>C is a great choice; it's a big step up from the hyperzoom.</p>

 

<p>Do you need D? Maybe, but unless there's a reason you have to buy it now, I'd say hold off. You have the 50/1.8 as a fast prime on the short end of the portraiture range. You're going to be getting a faster telephoto zoom when you replace the hyperzoom with the 70-200, so you're already improving your portraiture kit. My suggestion, then, is to see if that improves it enough, or if you still find yourself wishing for a faster lens on the longer end of the portraiture range (which is what an 85 is on a 1.6-crop camera). If you do, then by all means buy the 85; it's a fine lens. But it may be better to buy if only if it turns out you need it, rather than buying it right away and then wondering if you really use it enough to justify having bought it.</p>

 

<p>There you go: my opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Really? Sigma and Tamron make better lenses than Canon's L's? Really? Even the non-L's like the 85 1.8 -- Sigma and Tamron are better? LOL. DSLRs are ephemeral -- they are just image capturing computers. Lenses are close to forever -- don't scrimp. There you have it -- my philosophy in 3 sentences that's likely to offend someone</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Some people can afford all L lens, some people can not, but I think my Sigma 100-300 f/4 is good as any of the L lens in the same class, I looked at all the macro lens that were available at the time when I bought my Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro and it was rated as high as most of the Canon L lens in the same class. My Tokina 17mm f/3.5 well only recently did Canon come out with a 17mm lens and it is a TS-E lens. For a walk around lens the Tamron 17-50 is tough to beat, excellent lens for a very affordable price, half of what the Canon non L 17-55 sells for. Did I read that you had the Canon 85 f/1.8? Why skimp why not get a full frame with a 135L, I did that and then bought the 85 for a walk around lens on my crop camera, and guess what it hunts more than my Tamron 17-50 in low light. I don't believe that you skimp because you buy non Canon lens, like I said before Canon is not the only company that can make a great lens, they do charge for their lens like they do, however.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My favorite lens on my 7D is my 24-105 f/4L. While I realize this is not very wide on a crop-body, its wide end is close to my favorite focal length of 35mm (my prime FL of choice on my film bodies) and extends to a 35mm-equivalent of 168mm. Having this range to use as a walk-around lens is ideal for me, but the best part is that this lens is a superb lens that produces excellent image quality. There is also the 15-85mm that will give you the wider end, but I tend to lean more towards the long end of zooms. For something a little wider I use the 17-40 f/4L and for a lens with a bit more reach I use a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. These are the three lenses I use the most on my 7D, occasionally venturing out and about with the 85/1.8, but these three see the most action.</p>