7D and the essential lenses

[danti_hendrasti]

<p>Hello everyone. I'm thinking of buying Canon EOS 7D (body) with the following lenses to cover all my photography needs. Please let me have your opinions if these are good choices for its respective purpose or if there are other better options.<br>

General Purpose lens : 17-55mm f/2.8. Macro lens : 60mm f/2.8 (or 100mm f/2.8)... which one is better?. Wide angle lens : 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Telephoto lens ?<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>What are 'all you needs'?<br>

Wildlife, street photography, macro, sports, portraits, landscape....and what is the order of priority? If you intend to concentrate on sports then maybe the expense of the 60mm f2.8 is not justifiable? If you intend to concentrate on portraits then do you need a top notch 300mm zoom when you should be spending the money on a 70-200mm f2.8 IS?</p>

<p>More importantly what is your total immediate budget? </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>For what it is worth the lenses I use the most on the 7D are the 16-35 f2.8 II as a standrad lens and the 70-200 F4 L IS (general purpose). For sports I use the 300 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS). In general I do not use the 7D for very wide angle shots as i use the 5DII for these images - hence I have no experience of the 10-22. I have seen good results from the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 on Nikon 300D bodies so if you want wide angle you may want to look at this lens (although it is not much of a zoom range and behaves more like a prime). For macro I went with the 100 F2.8 IS and I am very happy with this lens although I suspect that the non IS version provides the same image quality. The lenses I rarely use on the 7D include the 85 F1.8, 8mm F3.5 sigma fisheye, 35mm F2 and the 24-70 F2.8 zoom.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Danti,<br>

the lenses you mention would indeed make a really nice setup for a wide range of subjects. The 100mm macro is quite long on a crop-sensor camera like the 7D, but it would also give you more working distance, which can be helpful for certain subjects such as insects. It will also allow you to get closer than 1:1 since it is designed for full-frame cameras. Optically both macros are superb.</p>

<p>Regarding the telephoto lens you'd probably want a zoom that picks up roughly from where your mid-range zoom ends (55mm). It depends a lot on what reach you think you need and on your budget.<br>

The 70-200mm f4 (IS or non-IS) is a high-quality tele-zoom at a moderate price. It's equally good f2.8 sibling costs quite a bit more. These would cover quite an extensive range with the other lenses in your line-up, but if you need more reach, you'd want to look into either a 70-300mm – e.g. the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM – or perhaps even the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. The latter offers beter quality and more reach, but is also a lot bigger/heavier and much more expensive; if you want to take bird-/wildlife shots, you might want to consider it nevertheless.</p>

[danti_hendrasti]

Thank you so much Mike, Phillip & Martin for the responses on my question.

I found all the responses very useful to make a better decision on what type of lenses I really need.

However, I don't have any plan to go FF so I am not sure if it's worth buying the L range lenses.

[danti_hendrasti]

By the way, my budget (for 7D body plus 3 or 4 lenses) is around $4700 (max 5k).

[ronhartman]

<p>I find it better to buy one lens at a time, probably the 17-55, and getting familiar with that lens by taking a lot of pictures. Then find out what that lens can't do for you and get a second lens to cover those situations.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I don't have any plan to go FF so I am not sure if it's worth buying the L range lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are looking to add a long telephoto then all of them are designed for full frame so this sentence is irrelevant. Same for primes. If you are looking at short zooms then you have the Canon 17-55 f2.8, or Tamron 17-50. Then you have ther 10-22 wide angle.</p>

<p>What camera/lenses do you have at the moment?</p>

<p>Put it another way - I have a corvette. What car do you think I should buy next?</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p><em>If you are looking to add a long telephoto then all of them are designed for full frame so this sentence is irrelevant. Same for primes</em></p>

<p>Actually, it's not really irrelevant.<br>

The Canon 55-250 IS USM, is an EF-S lens. So, if he wanted a cheap decent quality tele-zoom, that would be an option for $250-$280. Of course, I'm sure it doesn't compare to the 70-200 L's... but it's not meant to, the cheapest 70-200L, is the the f/4 non-IS, runs about $640 (currently).</p>

<p>Also the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro, is a prime, not compatible with FF. Reportedly, a nice quality lens too.</p>

[danti_hendrasti]

@ Mike... Actually, ignoring everyone's advices to get a Canon DSLR, I decided to buy Panasonic Lumix GH1 coz I was

attracted to its rather compact size and its film function. However, after using it for awhile and many photos taken, I

realised that I've made a "mistake". Its lens 14-140mm (equal to 28-280mm) doesn't really satisfy my photography needs

and eventhough recently Panasonic announced 3 new lenses specially made for G/GH1, the selections are still very limited

and the prices are quite high (Ex: a 7-14mm f/4.0 cost $1100 and 45mm f/2.8 costs $800). So I thought, instead of buying

new lenses for my GH1, I want to sell it and buy EOS 7D instead (with the lenses I mentioned above). What do you think?

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Good choices. Go for it!</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The set up you have proposed is fine but there remain 2 questions. In your choice of 60mm vs 100mm what will you use the lens for? If for macro then the 100mm will enable you to take the picture from further away - you are less likely to spook small creatures and you are less likely to block some of the light on the subject. If not for macro then it depends on what perspective you prefer.<br>

And as I said above, if the quality if the zoom is paramount and if you need IS and if money is tight, do you need the Canon 17-55 or should you save money be getting the Tamron 17-50 f2.8). If wide angle is important and money is tight, then you may be able to get away with the 70-300 IS USM or the 70-200 f4L (non-IS). If money is no problem then how about the 70-200f4L IS or the 100-400 L.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >7D, with the following lenses to cover all my photography needs. Please let me have your opinions if these are good choices for its respective purpose</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em >General Purpose lens 17-55mm f/2.8.</em></strong> (I assume the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM)<br />Arguably the best choice. IMO the best choice for an EF-S mount, one camera kit. </p>

<p >You might like to read this debate and apply the thoughts ot your choice of your main working lens: <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vwd4">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vwd4</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Macro lens : 60mm f/2.8 (or 100mm f/2.8)... which one is better?</em></strong></p>

<p >Both have strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the biggest criteria are: </p>

<p >> shooting distance </p>

<p >>what FL hole the lens will fill in your kit as a Prime Lens (i.e. not for Macro) – for example I choose the 100mm because I like the further SD and I also have a 50, 85 and 135. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You might like to read this and ask if a Macro lens is necessary, and consider how I believe that the FL of the macro lens should fit into the entire kit: <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vwj3">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Vwj3</a></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Wide angle lens : 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5</em></strong></p>

<p >I don’t know he lens well enough to comment – I would stipulate a Non Varying Maximum Aperture as my main criterion.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Telephoto lens ?:</em></strong></p>

<p >As you have listed exceptional quality fast IS glass in your standard zoom, my advice is to match it: EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is worthwhile noting that I did not buy the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM although I recommend this lens often and I have used the lens extensively, but over a small window of time. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The reason I did not buy the EF-S lens is because I have a dual format kit and therefore I only buy and use EF mount lenses. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use the EF16 to 35F/2.8L MkII USM as my main working lens on all my APS-C bodies. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I often recommend a different main working zoom as the best standard zoom lens for those in a different situation - hence my qualifier <strong ><em >“the best choice for an EF-S mount, one camera kit.” </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong><br>

<strong ><em >WW</em></strong></p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Danti I depending on what you want to do i would switch from the GH1 unless you want samll size and don't mind the deep DOF, slow lenses, very slow AF and poor performance above ISO 400. I actually have a G1 which I bough to use old FD lenses - while I am quite happy with the G1 it does not replace my Canon DSLRs and gets a lot less use. <br>

On your question about the L series lenses I would strongly suggest the 70-200 f4 (preferrably the IS version) as your telephoto lens even if you do not want to go full frame. It is dramatically better than the other tele options. Unless you really need F2.8 I would suggest you go for the F4 lens. I have both the F2.8 and F4 70-200s but except for sports use I prefer the F4. the quality of the two lenses is indistinguishable and the F4 lens is half the weight and more compact. Before people write in and tell me I know the F2.8 can do things the F4 cannot (i.e. shoot at F2.8) I know this and that is why I have one. The reason I have the F4 lens is that i carry my cameras around a lot an the extra 800g of the F2.8 zoom means that i do not like carrying it just in case.<br>

For the other lenses the Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22 look appealing if you want wide angle as does the 17-55 F2.8 canon (or the 17-40 f4 canon). For macro you may find the 60mm is a better bet as it can serve a dual purpose. my 100 F2.8 IS Macro is really only a Macro lens on the 7D as it is a bit long for portrait and similar uses (it works great on full frame). While I love my 16-35 f2.8 II on the 7D I would suggest that you do not buy thsi lens as it consumes a lot of your budget.</p>

<p>I guess that my views are very similar to William W's except for the 70-200 where i find the F4 IS is a better general purpose lens except for fast / low ligh sports. If you ever want to shoot ice hockey you really have to get the F2.8 lens as the F4 puts you at ISO 3200 or worse in many arenas - the same is true for evening games (soccer, football etc...)</p>

[danti_hendrasti]

<p>Thank you everyone (once again) for the responses. I will definitely consider all the advices/opinions to make my final decision. As I am new here, I just want to say what a great site this forum is. I found many great photographers and I have gained many useful knowledge from it. Grazie mille! </p>