Call me crazy but I think the baseline lenses everyone should own, at a minimum, are the 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a 50 since they are so affordable.
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
So here's the collection I settled on:
Eos 7D
50mm f/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 L IS
17-55 f/2.8 IS
Speedlight 580
Manfrotto 055 Pro Black tripod
Manfrotto 322 head
I am wondering if I should get the 100 MM 2.8 Macro L.......
Also looking at a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mark ii. Can get it for $500 after rebate now.
Call me crazy but I think the baseline lenses everyone should own, at a minimum, are the 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a 50 since they are so affordable.
i have all of those, but i wouldn't consider $3k of glass a baseline/minimum. people should learn the camera and lighting first, then upgrade glass once they settle in to a "style" of shooting. of course, everyone can spend their $$$ however they like...i'm just looking at it logically. no need to dump thousands needlessly, if the lens will go unused or not be utilized to its full potential (ex. get the f/4 instead of the f/2.8 if you don't need something that fast, etc).
Canon 7D and some stuff that sticks on the end of it.
Call me crazy but I think the baseline lenses everyone should own, at a minimum, are the 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a 50 since they are so affordable.
On APS-C, the range of a 24-70mm lens is not as useful since it's not really that wide. You'd be better off with a 17-5xmm lens from either Canon or Tamron.
Eos 7D
50mm f/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 L IS
17-55 f/2.8 IS
I see you don't settle for sub-standard stuff! IMO, I think you will find you don't use the 50/1.4 enough to justify keeping it along with the 17-55. I didn't, when I had a 40D and both those lenses. I found the AF on the 17-55 to be so much more reliable than the 50/1.4 that it pretty much negated the extra speed of the 1.4. But maybe you'll have a different experience with the AF fine tuning on your 7D.
Oh, and a big +1 for the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body. All too often, 24mm (38mm) is not wide enough at all.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I see you don't settle for sub-standard stuff! IMO, I think you will find you don't use the 50/1.4 enough to justify keeping it along with the 17-55. I didn't, when I had a 40D and both those lenses. I found the AF on the 17-55 to be so much more reliable than the 50/1.4 that it pretty much negated the extra speed of the 1.4. But maybe you'll have a different experience with the AF fine tuning on your 7D.
Oh, and a big +1 for the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body. All too often, 24mm (38mm) is not wide enough at all.
I am a bit OC. When I settle on things I usually wind up getting what I wanted in the first place anyways so I just go for it now. I agree with you on the 50mm. It's more of a telephoto lens with the 1.6x crop. I was thinking about trading it in for a Macro lens....
I see you don't settle for sub-standard stuff! IMO, I think you will find you don't use the 50/1.4 enough to justify keeping it along with the 17-55. I didn't, when I had a 40D and both those lenses. I found the AF on the 17-55 to be so much more reliable than the 50/1.4 that it pretty much negated the extra speed of the 1.4. But maybe you'll have a different experience with the AF fine tuning on your 7D.
Oh, and a big +1 for the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body. All too often, 24mm (38mm) is not wide enough at all.
I am a bit OC. When I settle on things I usually wind up getting what I wanted in the first place anyways so I just go for it now. I agree with you on the 50mm. It's more of a telephoto lens with the 1.6x crop. I was thinking about trading it in for a Macro lens....
I am a bit OC. When I settle on things I usually wind up getting what I wanted in the first place anyways so I just go for it now. I agree with you on the 50mm. It's more of a telephoto lens with the 1.6x crop. I was thinking about trading it in for a Macro lens....
I am like that too. Photography is a costly hobby for people like us. Money spent on something you will only upgrade a year or less later is money wasted. Although I actually wanted the 70-200/4LIS more than the 2.8. So portable. Anyway, yes, macro is the only thing your 17-55 and 70-200 don't do, so that's a good idea.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I am like that too. Photography is a costly hobby for people like us. Money spent on something you will only upgrade a year or less later is money wasted. Although I actually wanted the 70-200/4LIS more than the 2.8. So portable. Anyway, yes, macro is the only thing your 17-55 and 70-200 don't do, so that's a good idea.
I'm like this as well... I don't want to waste money on something now that I'm only going to regret purchasing down the road. I.E. I regret wasting my money on the Canon XSI, and starter lenses I originally purchased. They were cheap and crappy... and in the end I wasted a ton of money when I sold them. Same thing kinda happened with my 50D, although I somewhat had the lenses that I wanted, and it was a very nice setup.
Now I'm shooting Nikon, I didn't waste my time with cheaper bodies, I went for the D300. Instead of getting an offbrand lens, saving money and wondering what the Nikkor would be like, I went for the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. And I'm in love! Next in line is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (can't afford the VR2 sadly)
I regret wasting my money on the Canon XSI, and starter lenses I originally purchased. They were cheap and crappy... and in the end I wasted a ton of money when I sold them. Same thing kinda happened with my 50D, although I somewhat had the lenses that I wanted, and it was a very nice setup.
Now I'm shooting Nikon, I didn't waste my time with cheaper bodies, I went for the D300. Instead of getting an offbrand lens, saving money and wondering what the Nikkor would be like, I went for the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. And I'm in love! Next in line is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (can't afford the VR2 sadly)
funny, I feel exactly the opposite - I get great pics with the Canon XSi and the 18-55IS kit lens and wonder why people spend thousands and thousands of $$ on camera gear !
funny, I feel exactly the opposite - I get great pics with the Canon XSi and the 18-55IS kit lens and wonder why people spend thousands and thousands of $$ on camera gear !
I got excellent pictures from it, I just didn't like the build or the shutter sound. I have huge hands and even with the bat grip it felt like a small plastic camera. My problem is finding a camera that feels right in my hands. The 50D and the D300 fill that need of comfort very well.
I took a lot of great pics with my first DSLR and kit lens. But once you experience the quality of really good glass and a body, it's hard to go back. They feel like toys.
I took a lot of great pics with my first DSLR and kit lens. But once you experience the quality of really good glass and a body, it's hard to go back. They feel like toys.
right, but what happens when someone buy lots of expensive lens and camera bodies and it feels all good but then the pics don't improve much? I've just heard about this syndrome, never experienced it!
I've taken a different approach: bought to suit my needs starting out (ie when I didn't know enough to truly understand what I might need or want), and then once I realised how much more was available to me and what would truly fit my needs, started a "rolling upgrade". By buying and selling quality used gear at FM, KEH and here, I've never lost more than about $25 on any purchase/sale gear changes (essentially the cost of shipping) and it also means that as I work my way up the quality ladder I often have something to sell to help foot the bill of the next (and usually more expensive) item on the list. It's worked for me!
Btw, I also have and love my xsi - great little camera that has served me extremely well!
right, but what happens when someone buy lots of expensive lens and camera bodies and it feels all good but then the pics don't improve much? I've just heard about this syndrome, never experienced it!
Funny, the quality of my images greatly improved when I got "expensive" equipment... With a higher quality camera my confidence in my photographic abilities improved and my skills improved along with that.
I don't consider a 50D or D300 expensive. It is alot of money, but nothing compared to the $5000+ Pro DSLR's that are available. Or the $50k+ Hasselblad medium formats out there.
For some people the XSI, or any entry level dslr, is more than enough for them. For me, I needed an upgrade to improve further.
Comments
So here's the collection I settled on:
Eos 7D
50mm f/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 L IS
17-55 f/2.8 IS
Speedlight 580
Manfrotto 055 Pro Black tripod
Manfrotto 322 head
I am wondering if I should get the 100 MM 2.8 Macro L.......
Also looking at a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mark ii. Can get it for $500 after rebate now.
i have all of those, but i wouldn't consider $3k of glass a baseline/minimum. people should learn the camera and lighting first, then upgrade glass once they settle in to a "style" of shooting. of course, everyone can spend their $$$ however they like...i'm just looking at it logically. no need to dump thousands needlessly, if the lens will go unused or not be utilized to its full potential (ex. get the f/4 instead of the f/2.8 if you don't need something that fast, etc).
Yes, you should!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
On APS-C, the range of a 24-70mm lens is not as useful since it's not really that wide. You'd be better off with a 17-5xmm lens from either Canon or Tamron.
I see you don't settle for sub-standard stuff!
Oh, and a big +1 for the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body. All too often, 24mm (38mm) is not wide enough at all.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I am a bit OC. When I settle on things I usually wind up getting what I wanted in the first place anyways so I just go for it now. I agree with you on the 50mm. It's more of a telephoto lens with the 1.6x crop. I was thinking about trading it in for a Macro lens....
I am a bit OC. When I settle on things I usually wind up getting what I wanted in the first place anyways so I just go for it now. I agree with you on the 50mm. It's more of a telephoto lens with the 1.6x crop. I was thinking about trading it in for a Macro lens....
I am like that too. Photography is a costly hobby for people like us. Money spent on something you will only upgrade a year or less later is money wasted. Although I actually wanted the 70-200/4LIS more than the 2.8. So portable. Anyway, yes, macro is the only thing your 17-55 and 70-200 don't do, so that's a good idea.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm like this as well... I don't want to waste money on something now that I'm only going to regret purchasing down the road. I.E. I regret wasting my money on the Canon XSI, and starter lenses I originally purchased. They were cheap and crappy... and in the end I wasted a ton of money when I sold them. Same thing kinda happened with my 50D, although I somewhat had the lenses that I wanted, and it was a very nice setup.
Now I'm shooting Nikon, I didn't waste my time with cheaper bodies, I went for the D300. Instead of getting an offbrand lens, saving money and wondering what the Nikkor would be like, I went for the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. And I'm in love! Next in line is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (can't afford the VR2 sadly)
funny, I feel exactly the opposite - I get great pics with the Canon XSi and the 18-55IS kit lens and wonder why people spend thousands and thousands of $$ on camera gear !
right, but what happens when someone buy lots of expensive lens and camera bodies and it feels all good but then the pics don't improve much? I've just heard about this syndrome, never experienced it!
Btw, I also have and love my xsi - great little camera that has served me extremely well!
Funny, the quality of my images greatly improved when I got "expensive" equipment... With a higher quality camera my confidence in my photographic abilities improved and my skills improved along with that.
I don't consider a 50D or D300 expensive. It is alot of money, but nothing compared to the $5000+ Pro DSLR's that are available. Or the $50k+ Hasselblad medium formats out there.
For some people the XSI, or any entry level dslr, is more than enough for them. For me, I needed an upgrade to improve further.