Lens's for my Canon 7D

[david kosky]

<p>I am fairly new in photography. I have the new canon 7D and now I am looking at outfitting it with lens's. I like to do landscapes, seascapes - mostly outdoor shots, with a lot of ocean shots,. I also like to shoot surfers and birds. For this I have a Canon 100 - 400L with a 1.4 and a 2x extender. I have about $2000.00 set aside to purchase my lens's. Given the information, what lens's would you purchase and describing what I have am I best off keeping the 100 - 400 or selling and purchasing something else. Given all this what would you do?</p>

[mike_hollander]

<blockquote>

<p>lens's</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lenses</p>

[alex_dannenbaum]

<p>The 100-400 is a great lens, however, if you find yourself consistenly shooting at the long end of your range you might want to consider a prime. There are many telezoom and long prime options, but they can get very pricey as you probably already know. The 400 5.6 is a great alternative with better IQ and still within your budget, but you would have to give up the IS. On the lower end, you could go my personal route: An affordable wide angle, (10-22mm f/3.5- 4.5) for (landscapes, seascapes and other scapes) and a good walkaround lens (24-105 f/4L). You might find these resources helpful in your decision. <br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm">http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm</a><br>

Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[david kosky]

<p>Thanks Mike, lenses</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I will agree with Alex--in fact I already have. I have the 10-22, the 24-105 and the 100-400 and they are an excellent combo for covering the entire focal range from 10-400. I'm not sure how wide you want to go, so you may try just the 24-105 and see if it works for you. 24 is not very wide on a 7D (likewise on my XTi), but whether it's wide enough or not is up to you. I use the 24-105 as my walk around lens and it fits my shooting style very well. It should add a whole new dimension to your landscapes over the 100-400 that you're using now. The 10-22 even more so, though I don't use mine nearly as much as the 24-105.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>No lens will do both landscapes and birds. Keep the 100-400mm and get a good wide angle. The 10-22mm is a great super wide for your camera, but leaves quite a large gap from 22-100mm if you need it, which most situations will. I'd go for either the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, or the 17-40mm f/4L. Compare the 3 and decide which works best for you. The new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens has gotten great reviews and covers a great wide to tele range, and although it is said to have stellar image quality, it seems a little pricey for a slow lens. After you choose one of these lenses you can decide later if you still need wider and get the 10-22mm.</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>I think you should keep the 100-400mm. People consider it an excellent lens, and since you already have it, keep it, at least for awhile. If you're relatively new to photography, you'll want the 100mm to orient yourself to the scene and find your subject and then the zoom to zoom in on the subject that you've found. I know why some suggest getting a 400mm prime (better IQ) however, I think that should wait. It takes some practice to find a subject when you're already zoomed way in on it as you would be with the 400mm prime. Keep the 100-400mm range until you're comfortable doing that.</p>

<p>I agree with people about the 10-22mm. However, I find myself using 17-20mm a great deal so wish somewhat that I'd gotten a 15-85mm or one of the other lenses mentioned -- It would have more versatility and probably a bit better image quality. The 10-22 is the softest lens I have -- and I <strong>don't</strong> own any L-glass! Because of the softness, I've found my particular copy of the 10-22 best for "far away" landscapes, and other lenses better for things that are somewhat closeup.<br>

<br /><br />I don't know of any other crop-sensor lens that would have allowed me to capture all of Mt. Si and the surrounding mountains in one 10mm shot, so I guess I'm glad I bought the 10mm. (I just wish I had someone walking down the path for better composition.)<br>

<br /><a title="Mt. Si from Snoqualmie Point by TA3, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41766223@N00/4428330048/"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4428330048_010a107de7.jpg" alt="Mt. Si from Snoqualmie Point" width="500" height="270" /></a><br>

But you definitely need something wide for landscapes....or you need to practice doing stitch panoramas with the 100mm lens. I've done that too. Just shoot a composite of the scene using a tripod in portrait orientation (camera sideways), and stitch the shots together using the Canon photostitch (or Photoshop if you have it).</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>Reading your post again, Oh yes!!! the 10-22mm would be excellent for nice, wide ocean shots, BTW....I don't have any myself (yet), but Flickr has an abundance of good shots.<br>

Since you have $2000 maybe the 10-22 would be a good lens for you for the ocean shots and other wide landscapes, but add another semi-wide zoom lens such as those mentioned above for better closeup IQ and better versatility in closing the gap between 22 and 100.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>David, just wondering, what happened with the lenses in this thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00VwzU">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00VwzU</a> ?</p>

[david kosky]

<p>I kind of cut and pasted all of my lenses from Craigslist, ebay etc. I got some lenses that had lens creep, and other abnormalities. I decided to sell everything I had except the 100 - 400 and start from scratch. I wanted to have less lenses but better quality and therefore I wanted to get peoples opinion. I think I have become addicted to lens buying. Thanks for your help.</p>