Canon Lens Question

JoshF

Hi All - I'm a new member and think this site is great. I am looking into taking some digital photography classes and need some lens advice. I like the 7D since I've always used Canon and I like the HD video recording quality. What lenses do you recommend starting with? I was thinking about the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4L to start. Should I also get a 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 50mm? How should I choose?

Thanks all.

kdog

The 17-55 will cost you $1,000. If you can afford it, then you should get that over the 50mm. Why? Because of the zoom range, the IS, and excellent image quality. The 50mm F1.4 is an excellent lens. But if you have the 17-55, I doubt you'll use the 50mm much. I didn't. Although, since going to full-frame, I'm finding new uses for the 50. (The 17-55 doesn't work on full-frame.) Take the money you save from not buying the 50 in addition to the 17-55 and get the IS version of the 70-200 F4.

Regarding the 24-70, I wouldn't go there. Very expensive, no IS, and 24 is too wide to be your widest lens.

Oh, and hey. Welcome to Dgrin!!

Regards,
-joel

bloomphotog

Welcome to Dgrin, Josh.

ALWAYS have a 50mm in your bag(and use it!). That's my philosophy. I think you're right on the money. Start with the 50mm, then get the 70-200mm f/4. Don't worry about the IS version. Way overpriced for such slow glass. Save a little longer and get the 70-200 2.8 if you want better low light performance.

My problem with wide zooms is most people tend to use them as a crutch. Too often they are used when a much longer lens is in order. I would suggest skipping the 17-55 for an ultra wide lens. Nikon has the incredible 14-24, but Canon folks will do better sticking to primes(for now at least). An ultra wide will keep you from using wide glass when you shouldn't be. And the compound benefit is way more dramatic shots. Win win.

Start with the 50 and f/4 zoom.

ChatKat

50! 24-70 24-105
Well, I don't agree at all with K-dog.

I just came from an event where I brought 6 lenses: 16-35 2.8 - 70-200 2.8is, the 24-105 4.0is; 50 1.2 and the 35 1.4. I use two 5d's ( a mark 1 and a mark II).

The 50 1.2 never left my camera, It's my favorite focal length. I use that lens every time I shoot. I often take a 2nd camera for event shooting. Actually I have all the 50mm focal length lenses for my cameras. 50 1.2 - 50 1.4 50 1.8 and a 50 2.5 Macro.

I think the best way to decide on your lenses is to rent one and then you can decide.

bloomphotog

ChatKat wrote:

Well, I don't agree at all with K-dog.

I just came from an event where I brought 6 lenses: 16-35 2.8 - 70-200 2.8is, the 24-105 4.0is; 50 1.2 and the 35 1.4. I use two 5d's ( a mark 1 and a mark II).

The 50 1.2 never left my camera, It's my favorite focal length. I use that lens every time I shoot. I often take a 2nd camera for event shooting. Actually I have all the 50mm focal length lenses for my cameras. 50 1.2 - 50 1.4 50 1.8 and a 50 2.5 Macro.

I think the best way to decide on your lenses is to rent one and then you can decide.

+1000

kdog

ChatKat wrote:

Well, I don't agree at all with K-dog.

I just came from an event where I brought 6 lenses: 16-35 2.8 - 70-200 2.8is, the 24-105 4.0is; 50 1.2 and the 35 1.4. I use two 5d's ( a mark 1 and a mark II).

I find it fascinating that you (a) completely disagree with me, and (b) are so in love with the 50mm, and yet chose to bring six lenses anyway, many of which are zooms, and (c) covered essentially the same focal ranges with six lenses as I proposed with 2.

Jeremy Winterberg

I used a Promaster (owned by Tamron) 17-50mm f/2.8 as my main lens on my 50D... But, like others said, if you went full frame you wouldn't be able to use it.

If you're looking for a great telephoto zoom the Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L is amazing... and it doesn't break the bank. The 70-200 L series glass came out after the 80-200 was discontinued back in 1993'ish.

I have used the 70-200 2.8 IS, non IS, the f/4 non IS and the 80-200 2.8... and I have to say that the 2.8IS is nice, but the 80-200 is very similar to the 70-200 2.8 non IS and also costs half as much almost. The IS is only nice if you're actually going to need it. The f/4 is virtually useless inside in low-light situations. But if you're mainly going to be outside the f/4 would work just fine.

I'm currently trying to sell my 80-200 2.8L because I switched to Nikon. I really wish this lens would work with my D300, but it doesn't... The auction ends tomorrow night, and there's also a buy it now option... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110457772442&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT

Brett1000

JoshF wrote:

Hi All - I'm a new member and think this site is great. I am looking into taking some digital photography classes and need some lens advice. How should I choose?

Thanks all.

if you are new to DSLR's I would suggest starting with the kit lens before spending thousands of $$$. A little learning time will provide lots of knowledge later in evaluating your lens needs.

NeilL

Good advice above about renting a few lenses or in some way getting a bit familiar with their feel/action/use before deciding on what to buy.

If you aren't already set on one or other kind of photography, eg studio, sport, street, etc - it might take you some time to get your direction. Therefore you might find yourself changing your lens collection a few times as time goes by. That is normal.

Usually FF or crop body, price and build are high up on people's considerations. You will find your position on those scales as well.

Primes and zooms each involve different approaches to shooting. I think that primes are the more powerful for developing and honing your shooting skills. I think they have the potential to produce more exciting and interesting shots, partly because they require more action from the photographer in getting shots, and they are simpler, lighter and more compact, so they help you to be quicker and more mobile in response to opportunities. On the other hand, zooms can get you shots you couldn't get with some/wrong primes on your camera.

A 50mm will teach you a lot and get you good shots. The new 100mm IS USM L macro is an exciting, versatile and challenging lens. The 14mm L will pack a whole lot into the frame, and the 70-200mm f4 IS L is just sweet for the long view. The extremes either side are for more special uses.

Neil

StevenSzabo

kdog wrote:

I find it fascinating that you (a) completely disagree with me, and (b) are so in love with the 50mm, and yet chose to bring six lenses anyway, many of which are zooms, and (c) covered essentially the same focal ranges with six lenses as I proposed with 2.

your photos are great...but if you don't understand why someone would shoot with a 50mm prime over the 17-55 maybe you should give the prime a shot. it's not just about covering the focal range, the 50mm primes all render gorgeous bokeh that you just will not get from the zooms, and at least in the nikons are incredibly sharp for a value priced low light lens.

I carry my 50mm 1.4 with me everywhere. It takes up so little space in the bag it's not worth it to not have it. Then again I don't generally carry a wide angle at all. 50mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8, I have an 18-70 but basically never use it.

while she does indeed have a lot of overlap in her lens bag, there's quite a range there. The only one of those I would have left at home is the 35 1.4, on a full frame I much prefer the 50mm length over 35, I dunno why. Then again I've never really seriously shot canon, so maybe it's an incredible lens and I just didn't know it. She's got everything covered from 16mm to 200mm, can't argue with that. if money was no object, and I could actually justify it my lens bag would be 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VRII, and yes, I'd still bring the 50. even though the 24-70 nikon is ridiculous there's just no substitute for a 50mm prime...

ChatKat

It's about the light
When you are shooting an event - it's not static light. You don't always know what the room will be like and where you will get to be in the scheme of shooting. Then there is the light variable. Some events are in brightly lit rooms or very dimly lit rooms and you might want to use a longer lens but you have to use wider lenses because you need that ability to use a slow shutter and wide aperture to get the shot. Last nights room was partially lit by candlelight. A fair part of the night was shot at 1.2 - wide open and 2500 iso. I love the color, sharpness, weight, and ability to shoot at very wide apetures. The 35 1.4 allows me to get in a bit closer than the 50.

I shoot events with two cameras. One always has a prime on it and the other a zoom because I can't be everywhere all the time and I can easily swap bodies to get the shot. As a professional photographer who is frequently published now, I have to have redundent lenses in my bag. If one were to fail, I can't miss. I actually have a third body just in case.

JoshF

Thanks for all above comments. I will definately get the 50mm f/1.4.

In terms of zoom, is the 70-200 f/f a good choice or should I spend extra and get the f/2.8 or f/4 is? The f/2.8 is is too much for me at this time.

StevenSzabo

JoshF wrote:

Thanks for all above comments. I will definately get the 50mm f/1.4.

In terms of zoom, is the 70-200 f/f a good choice or should I spend extra and get the f/2.8 or f/4 is? The f/2.8 is is too much for me at this time.

That's actually not as straight forward of a question as you might think...it really depends on what you shoot and where. if you can forsee a time when not having that extra aperture is going to make the difference between you getting the shot and a blurry mess, then the 2.8 is worth the extra money, if you can't then save the money and get the F4 IS

ziggy53

JoshF wrote:

Hi All - I'm a new member and think this site is great. I am looking into taking some digital photography classes and need some lens advice. I like the 7D since I've always used Canon and I like the HD video recording quality. What lenses do you recommend starting with? I was thinking about the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4L to start. Should I also get a 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 50mm? How should I choose?

Thanks all.

JoshF, welcome to the Digital Grin.

For event photography, I love the speed and freedom of a "standard/normal" zoom lens. At a wedding reception, for instance, when I shoot the candids, I generally cover the dining tables between any planned shots of the bride and groom.

As I move through the room I shoot fairly wide to capture the general scene and group interactions. I often see individual vignettes unfold which require a tighter view. At that point I zoom in for the detail, and then right back out to continue shooting the groups. If I am working a large space, I will often use 2 camera bodies and different zoom ranges for each body. That way, if something happens at a distance or happens closely I am still prepared and ready.

For nature and fine art photography, primes are a wonderful tool. Large aperture primes give you the ability to differentiate and seperate the subject from the surroundings, or stopping down allows perspective compression and sharp framing. The ability to choose and "design" the image is very enabling.

For starting out and for taking classes, I suggest that a modern, large aperture zoom can give you the maximum benefit in the smallest kit. The most flexible and very high quality combination I can recommend in a 2 lens kit is the:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM

With those 2 lenses I can cover 80 to 85 percent of either social events or walk-a-round shooting (nature, typical landscapes and urban scenes.)

I generally add a 1.4x teleconverter for longer reach and a fast 50mm for indoor ambient and outdoor bokeh.

An appropriate flash and modifiers are also highly recommended, for both indoor and outdoor applications.

If you want to do vista landscapes in a single capture a super-wide zoom is also indicated, although mostly now I use stitched panoramas for both vista landscapes and pastoral scenes whenever possible.

If you want to do true macro and close-up photography, a macro lens with 1:1 enlargement is awfully nice to have, but in my travel kit I use a Canon 500D close-focus diopter and I'm very happy with the results.

Some examples from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM on a 40D:

kdog

ziggy53 wrote:

The most flexible and very high quality combination I can recommend in a 2 lens kit is the:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM

With those 2 lenses I can cover 80 to 85 percent of either social events or walk-a-round shooting (nature, typical landscapes and urban scenes.)

Thank you. It's surprising how much flak I took for making the same suggestion.

kdog

StevenSzabo wrote:

That's actually not as straight forward of a question as you might think...it really depends on what you shoot and where.

That's really the bottom line here. The OP never stated what it is that they intend to shoot. For some reason, most of the responses here have been oriented toward event photography, which I don't get. Event photography to me seems like a very specialized niche. Since when do photography students shoot events professionally?

The other thing I'd like to address is preferring a 50mm prime over a zoom if you can only choose one. On the 7D (which was stated as a given), a 50mm has a 80mm full-frame equivalency. You can completely rule out general landscape photography with that lens, unless you want to make a pano out of every shot. And speaking of events, you can't capture anywhere near a whole room at 50mm either. You need a wide-angle to shoot a room.

Yes, I know the primes produce a lovely bokeh. But unless you're doing portraits exclusively, I think you're better of having the range. The 17-55mm can be shot wide-open at F2.8 and the bokeh you get from it ain't too shabby either. BTW, for the Nikon shooters in this thread who might not be aware, the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 is an excellent lens which is sharp and usable across the entire zoom range. Maybe folks are confusing it with a "kit" kind of lens, which this lens isn't. Of course, it ain't cheap either.

Just my 2 centavos...
-joel

ChatKat

Full Frame
You can't use a 17-55 on a Full Frame camera - only on the crop factor.

Photography is about style as much as technique - different lenses achieve different looks in the finished image. K-Dog, we can disagree - from your galleries, we don't shoot the same stuff and we might need different tools to get the job done.

kdog

ChatKat wrote:

You can't use a 17-55 on a Full Frame camera - only on the crop factor.

The OP said 7D, that's a crop camera.

Photography is about style as much as technique - different lenses achieve different looks in the finished image. K-Dog, we can disagree - from your galleries, we don't shoot the same stuff and we might need different tools to get the job done.

Not sure if that's a dig or what. I have everything from landscape, to astrophotography, to model photography on my site. And so do you for that matter.

Regardless, it's not about my photography, or yours. I answered the question from the perspective of general photography application. I'm simply baffled how folks can recommend a two-lens combination that doesn't get you wider than 50mm, especially on a crop-body. And that would be regardless of what you shoot.

Regards,
-joel

ziggy53

JoshF wrote:

... I like the 7D since I've always used Canon and I like the HD video recording quality. ...

ChatKat wrote:

You can't use a 17-55 on a Full Frame camera - only on the crop factor.

...

The OP is considering the Canon 7D, which is a crop 1.6x body. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM would be a wonderful standard zoom for that body.

What am I missing?

Jeremy Winterberg

ziggy53 wrote:

The OP is considering the Canon 7D, which is a crop 1.6x body. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM would be a wonderful standard zoom for that body.

What am I missing?

Nothing - you're right, its an amazing lens on a crop body.

I used an off-brand of an off-brand version of this lens.. still brought home money so I don't care. I loved it well, now some guy in IL is loving it

saurora

Hi Josh and welcome! No one responded to your comment about shooting video and I, for one, do NOT have an answer for that. Anyone?

Obviously the 50 is a POPULAR lens, especially for the full-frame crowd. I have 2 of them (the cheap 1.8 and the 1.4) and rarely ever use them. I have a crop camera and unless I am shooting head shots, they are usually too close for indoors. Like Joel said, you did not mention what your shooting intentions are. There are so many things to consider that will make a difference on what type of lens you will be most content with. None of them are bad purchases unless you end up not using it. Even at that, most good glass holds it's value well and you can re-sell if it doesn't work out or should you decide to change camera body styles. You can learn on any lens....and you will continue to learn as you acquire new lenses. Primes force you to shoot differently than zooms, obviously. If you plan on shooting a variety of subjects, I think Joel's suggestions are good. If you plan on shooting any landscapes, or group photos, you will need something on the wide end. Natural light (preferably faster glass), or do you want to learn flash? So many considerations.

A few things to keep in mind:

Some glass will not move up to a full-frame camera if you see one in your future.

Primes ARE amazing for grabbing light w/o flash....and they are oh-so-lovely! They are lighter to carry than zooms, but your feet must do the zooming. Do you like to be close to your subject or do you not care that you may have to stand across the street to get the shot you want? I learned on a zoom and now using a prime, I find myself without thinking 'tilting' the camera to make the subject fit the frame... That being said, in my mind, everyone should own a 'good' prime at least once in their life!

I would always (if monetarily possible) purchase IS....you can always turn it off, but a heavy lens with no IS will probably require a tripod for sharpness. Do you see yourself with a tripod? Be honest. Many just refuse, including moi. Depends how steady-handed of a shooter you are, too and the lighting conditions.

Buy one lens at a time and use it for a while so you can see it's capabilities and it's limitations. You may change your mind about what your 2nd lens will be.

I always liken lens choices to buying a new car. There is no perfect do-it-all vehicle. Sometimes I want a sports car and sometimes I need a truck! You will probably never satisfy your 'lens lust' unless you become an event photographer (like Kathy) and have 2 full-frame cameras and an assistant to help haul it all!!! Have fun whatever you do.

P.S. Sorry for being so long-winded...I usually am!

StevenSzabo

saurora wrote:

They are lighter to carry than zooms

gotta agree there...I handhold the 300 2.8 sometimes for hours at a time...the 200-400 I got tired after about 45 minutes.

divamum

I'll throw in my overinflated 2c and say get a Tamron 17-50 AND a 50mm (either 1.8 or 1.4). The Tamron is noisier and not quite as zippy to focus as Canon's 17-55is, but IQ is wonderful, and I've found mine to be a responsive and very reliable lens. Given the price difference (the Mk1 is about $300 less than the Canon), it's tremendous value for money and one of the most reliable lenses in my bag.

I also have a 50 1.4 (used to have the 1.8) - I use it a lot as well, and certainly wouldn't want to be without some kind of wide-aperture prime.

JoshF

If you were a newbie and wanted to start off with 2 lenses what would you want?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I would like to shoot:

My dog in action at the park
Scenes around SF, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My motorcycle and other toys

Jeremy Winterberg

JoshF wrote:

If you were a newbie and wanted to start off with 2 lenses what would you want?
<o:p> </o:p>
I would like to shoot:
<o:p> </o:p>
My dog in action at the park
Scenes around SF, people, buildings
The ocean and places near the GG Bridge
My motorcycle and other toys

I'd go with the lenses divamum suggested. at LEAST the 17-50 2.8... If you want something with more reach than the 50mm pick up a sigma or tamron 70-200mm 2.8. total cost = ~$1200 with the 70-200, ~$800 with the 50 1.4 , and ~$500 with the 50mm 1.8

JoshF

saurora wrote:

Hi Josh and welcome! No one responded to your comment about shooting video and I, for one, do NOT have an answer for that. Anyone?

Obviously the 50 is a POPULAR lens, especially for the full-frame crowd. I have 2 of them (the cheap 1.8 and the 1.4) and rarely ever use them. I have a crop camera and unless I am shooting head shots, they are usually too close for indoors. Like Joel said, you did not mention what your shooting intentions are. There are so many things to consider that will make a difference on what type of lens you will be most content with. None of them are bad purchases unless you end up not using it. Even at that, most good glass holds it's value well and you can re-sell if it doesn't work out or should you decide to change camera body styles. You can learn on any lens....and you will continue to learn as you acquire new lenses. Primes force you to shoot differently than zooms, obviously. If you plan on shooting a variety of subjects, I think Joel's suggestions are good. If you plan on shooting any landscapes, or group photos, you will need something on the wide end. Natural light (preferably faster glass), or do you want to learn flash? So many considerations.

A few things to keep in mind:

Some glass will not move up to a full-frame camera if you see one in your future.

Primes ARE amazing for grabbing light w/o flash....and they are oh-so-lovely! They are lighter to carry than zooms, but your feet must do the zooming. Do you like to be close to your subject or do you not care that you may have to stand across the street to get the shot you want? I learned on a zoom and now using a prime, I find myself without thinking 'tilting' the camera to make the subject fit the frame... That being said, in my mind, everyone should own a 'good' prime at least once in their life!

I would always (if monetarily possible) purchase IS....you can always turn it off, but a heavy lens with no IS will probably require a tripod for sharpness. Do you see yourself with a tripod? Be honest. Many just refuse, including moi. Depends how steady-handed of a shooter you are, too and the lighting conditions.

Buy one lens at a time and use it for a while so you can see it's capabilities and it's limitations. You may change your mind about what your 2nd lens will be.

I always liken lens choices to buying a new car. There is no perfect do-it-all vehicle. Sometimes I want a sports car and sometimes I need a truck! You will probably never satisfy your 'lens lust' unless you become an event photographer (like Kathy) and have 2 full-frame cameras and an assistant to help haul it all!!! Have fun whatever you do.

P.S. Sorry for being so long-winded...I usually am!

Thanks. This is very helpful.

Malte

kdog wrote:

Thank you. It's surprising how much flak I took for making the same suggestion.

You were also pwned:

ChatKat wrote:

...As a professional photographer who is frequently published now...

Or am I not using that right?

Malte

Robinivich

JoshF wrote:

Hi All - I'm a new member and think this site is great. I am looking into taking some digital photography classes and need some lens advice. I like the 7D since I've always used Canon and I like the HD video recording quality. What lenses do you recommend starting with? I was thinking about the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4L to start. Should I also get a 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 50mm? How should I choose?

Thanks all.

Just going to add my 2 cents to help you come to a decision. I currently own a 40D (wishing it were a 7D), the 17-55IS, 70-200F4, and the 50F1.8.

In your shoes I would not be very worried about the 17-55's incompatibility with full frame. The 7D is a very powerful camera, and I doubt you'll feel it to be limiting at all. This lens should be the center of your system. If in doubt, it will deliver. You need a standard zoom for an APS-C camera, and this is the one. A 7D with a 17-55IS mounted essentially qualifies as pro gear.

If you need "pro" gear for your 70-200mm range, you really need to shell out the big bucks for an f2.8 IS lens. Even then, indoors events often require fast primes. I don't think "taking some digital photography classes" means you need to spend the many $1000s required for this adventure, so go by budget. My budget said 70-200F4 was my only option, and I couldn't be happier with the purchase, it is the best lens I own. Any step up the range will give improvements. It's your wallet, your call.

As for a 50mm, these lenses get a lot of people raving, I enjoy my 50mm f1.8, used wide open it has a look nothing else of mine can replicate. Just don't get too obsessed, not everybody raves about 50mms. This lens has a purpose, on APS-C a fairly limited one. If I were on full frame, I'd buy a 50f1.4. For APS-C I'd stick with the 1.8, it's cheaper than the tax you'll be paying for your 7D, and if you like the perspective that much, you can upgrade to a better version with no regrets about it.

Burbank

JoshF wrote:

Hi All - I'm a new member and think this site is great. I am looking into taking some digital photography classes and need some lens advice. I like the 7D since I've always used Canon and I like the HD video recording quality. What lenses do you recommend starting with? I was thinking about the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4L to start. Should I also get a 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 50mm? How should I choose?

Thanks all.

Hi Josh: By now, you may have made your choice. I scanned some of the other replies and there's one point I don't recall seeing. If you have the money, you might want to consider lenses which will work well on the 7D with its APS-C sized image sensor and which will work with a full frame camera you may own someday. Maybe you'll never want a full frame.

If it's any help, I've listed my lenses below. I use them on my 7D and 5D Mark II. Of course, they're different on the two bodies. Let me know if I can answer any questions re: the following lenses.

BODIES

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 7D

LENSES

Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 1.4X II Extender

ziggy53

Burbank wrote:

Hi Josh: By now, you may have made your choice. I scanned some of the other replies and there's one point I don't recall seeing. If you have the money, you might want to consider lenses which will work well on the 7D with its APS-C sized image sensor and which will work with a full frame camera you may own someday. Maybe you'll never want a full frame.

If it's any help, I've listed my lenses below. I use them on my 7D and 5D Mark II. Of course, they're different on the two bodies. Let me know if I can answer any questions re: the following lenses.

BODIES

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 7D

LENSES

Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 1.4X II Extender

Burbank, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for sharing your equipment list and your experience.

kdog

Burbank wrote:

Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye

How do you like this lens? Any samples you wish to share?