Lenses for Canon 7D

[Tangata]

I’ll shortly be purchasing a Canon 7D and I’m considering what lenses to get with it.

My initial thought was to get a 17 – 55 mm f2.8 IS and to couple it with a 70 – 200 mm lens.

However that leaves a “hole” between 55 and 70. Maybe that is not too much of a problem, with 18 mega pixels you can probably crop down to the equivalent of 70 mm and still get a fair sized print.

The alternative short lens is a 15 – 85 mm f 3.5- 5.6 IS I like the 15 mm, but will I regret the loss of “speed”?

Turning to the long lens I have a similar problem. A 70 – 200 mm f 2.8 L or a 70 – 300 f 4 – 5.6L IS.

Given that the 70 – 200 f 2.8 IS is outside my budget, do I go for the slower but longer lens with IS, or the faster lens?

There is also an outsider, the EF-S 55 – 250 mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is incredible cheap, but most reviews are not encouraging and I don’t see it measuring up against either of the “L” lenses.

Your thoughts/comments and any experience with any of these lenses would be much appreciated.

[byteme]

First lets take into account you have made an real £££$$$£££ investment with the 7D (I own one as well) - but its the lens that makes the real difference so if your budget allows go for L lens to compliment your 7D

Have you looked at the 24x70 L f2.8 - superb optics with fast f2.8 makes for a wonderful 'all rounder' - this one is the lens usually attached to my 7D - OK its not IS but with the variety of settings the 7D gives you moving the ISO or (if you are not worried about DOF) changing the F stop will get you the shutter speed you need.

The maybe consider the 70x200 L f4 - for all the reasons of the one above except its f4 - never proved to be a probem to me.

The 70x300 is a good lens but the sweet spot is sometimes difficult to find - I personally found it a frustrating lens and have since sold it.

I can only suggest you avoid the 55x250 you mention - you say its cheap and thats what you get - its a great starter lens but why clamp that to a 7D - you'll get what you pay for!

If your budget allows then the 'new' 70x300 L is a cracker........... but its similar in price to the 70x200 L2.8 IS so its another mortgage to get one............

Hope this helps............... John

[postcardcv]

Personally I don't think that the gap between 55mm and 70mm is an issue, but that will probably depend on what you like to photograph. I would work out which lens you will be using most and invest in the best you can to cover that range. If you buy two midprice lenses you'll probably end up upgrading both of them.

I've never used the 17-55 f2.8 but it does get great reviews, clear a very good choice for a crop camera. I agree with John that that 24-70 f2.8 is an amazing lens, but a difference of 7mm at the wide end would be very noticable - if you need the wide end then it's not a good choice for a cropper.

As for the longer lens, I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS and would recommend it to anyone. Sure it's an expensive lens but AF speed and acuracy are excellent and the image quality is superb (it's very sharp even when shooting at f2.8). It is probably my most used lens in the last year, according to lightroom ~2/3rds of my shots in the last 6 months have been through this lens. IS and good sharpness at f2.8 coupled with a camera with good high ISO performace (like the 7D) mean you can shoot in quite low light without a flash. I have shot a couple of events like this and not having to rely on flash has been very useful. The f4 version of the lens is a good choice on a budget and performs very well, but if you can afford the f2.8 IS it's worth the extra.

[wolfie]

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is as good as any L lens and I'm comparing it with my 100mmL macro IS, 70-200L and 10-400L.

I would agree with postcardcv that the missing 15mm is not worth worrying about.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a stunning lens, but I find it's the least used on my 7D, as I use mainly the 17-55 and 100-400 plus the 100mm macro.
Harry

[Takahashi]

I don't want to hijack your thread Tangata, but I want to ask Harry if he considers the 100-400 more versatile than the 70-200, and is the f-drop any kind of a limitation, beyond the obvious? I've been juggling the possibility of these two lenses for months now, and still can't decide. I know that when my savings creep towards that £1000 mark, the 100-400 might just beat the 70-200, simply by being cheaper! ...unless i can be persuaded otherwise? It would be used primarily for birding, motor racing events, and some general use.

[Tangata]

No hijack Takahashi, I’ll be interested in Harry’s answer.

I’ve decided on the 17 – 55 f2.8 USM coupled with the 70 – 300 F4-5.6 L USM.

Prices are dropping here for some reason, so I am holding a watching brief at the moment.

[Gidders]

Although I haven't used one... I'm not convinced about the new 70-300 L. I have the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS non L and in terms of image quality it was always reckoned to be up there with L series lens (although not the same build quality) - have a look at www.slrgear.com and you'll see that at some focal lengths/apertures the (much) cheaper lens is in fact sharper than the new one

However these days I find myself very rarely using it - the (comparatively) slow maximum aperture is a major drawback for me so I reach for my 70-200 f2.8L every time - its awesome. I did have a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which produced great images but it was sooooo heavy that I sold it and bought the 70-200 and haven't regretted it yet

[wolfie]

Originally Posted by Tangata

No hijack Takahashi, I’ll be interested in Harry’s answer.

I’ve decided on the 17 – 55 f2.8 USM coupled with the 70 – 300 F4-5.6 L USM.

Prices are dropping here for some reason, so I am holding a watching brief at the moment.

A few years ago I asked the same question on this forum. Eventually buying the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS version, plus a two times convertor. 12 months later I bought the 100-400 IS version.
Although I still have the 70-200 f/2.8 it very rarely goes on my camera and the 100-400 rarely comes off.

I guess a lot depends on what your interests are, I shoot mainly birds and aircraft and for this the 100-400 is an excellent choice. This lens coupled with my 7D is capable of exceptional results.

having said that the 70-200 also produces great results and I would love the later IS version as this is a great lens. Coupled with the 24-70 f/2.8 and such as the 5D they make a great combination for wedding photography.

Harry

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Takahashi

I don't want to hijack your thread Tangata, but I want to ask Harry if he considers the 100-400 more versatile than the 70-200, and is the f-drop any kind of a limitation, beyond the obvious? I've been juggling the possibility of these two lenses for months now, and still can't decide. I know that when my savings creep towards that £1000 mark, the 100-400 might just beat the 70-200, simply by being cheaper! ...unless i can be persuaded otherwise? It would be used primarily for birding, motor racing events, and some general use.

As has been said by others it really is a matter of what you plan on shooting with it. I love my 70-200 f2.8 IS and would only part with it for the mkII, the lens is sharp wide open, with fast and acurate focusing and delivers stunning images. It is my go to lens for most portrait work and on a full frame camera is my workhorse lens for weddings. However when you start adding tc's to give more reach it starts to lose it's edge a little. In my experience the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x tc (though apparently the 70-200 mkII with a 2x is as good as the 100-400). If you need the focal length then go for the 100-400, if you want an amazing portrait lens then go for the 70-200.

[byteme]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

As has been said by others it really is a matter of what you plan on shooting with it. I love my 70-200 f2.8 IS and would only part with it for the mkII, the lens is sharp wide open, with fast and acurate focusing and delivers stunning images. It is my go to lens for most portrait work and on a full frame camera is my workhorse lens for weddings. However when you start adding tc's to give more reach it starts to lose it's edge a little. In my experience the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 with a 2x tc (though apparently the 70-200 mkII with a 2x is as good as the 100-400). If you need the focal length then go for the 100-400, if you want an amazing portrait lens then go for the 70-200.

I echo this - couldn't put it better ~ John