7D - Which lens should i go for?

Nicko

I am buying a 7D, but im not quite sure which lens i should get. i mostly do landscape, a little bit of wildlife, and shots of family and friends. i will also use it quite a bit for video.

i have around $3000 - $4000 to play with

i was thinking of getting a canon 17-40mm, and then a cheap canon 55-250 for when i travel.

any suggestions?

Thanks

ziggy53

If you can swing it, a very usable 2 lens kit is:

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

If you have to, drop back to a Canon 50D body and put the money towards better lenses.

Add the Canon 1.4x teleconverter and you have a very versatile kit that can do much of what you want to do. If that's too much for your budget then:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L USM (without the IS)

Eventually I also suggest a super-wide zoom for vista landscapes and/or stitched panoramics using a panoramic head on a tripod and software to stitch the multiple images together.

AlbertZeroK

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is a very well rounded lens. It's either that or my 70-200 (although I have the f/2.8 IS version.) I also tend to grab my Sigma 30mm 1.4 from time to time.

May I also suggest the 10-22 EF-s lens from Canon, or similar from Tameron or Sigma - I LOVE having such a wide angle lens.

I also have the 24-105 and 85mm, neither of which get used.

Nicko

ziggy53 wrote:

If you have to, drop back to a Canon 50D body and put the money towards better lenses.

if i dropped back, the 50D doesn't have video, should i consider the 550D? i'd prefer to keep the build quality up so it lasts.

Eclipsed

The 50D will have a much better build quality when compared to a 550D/T2i. The 550D is plastic whereas the 50D is magnesium alloy. Which do you think would last longer?

The 550D is also still technically a consumer camera as is the entire XXXD line. A 50D is more of a pro camera and would be much more like a 7D.

ziggy53

Nicko wrote:

if i dropped back, the 50D doesn't have video, should i consider the 550D? i'd prefer to keep the build quality up so it lasts.

The video section in any dSLR will not replace a camcorder for most people. The 7D is mostly suited to "indie" style video productions, which are very much like a Hollywood production with short takes and lots of capture and editing, external microphones and large aperture prime lenses.

The recent DPReview of the Canon Rebel T2i/550D indicates that it has a fairly decent AF section for video, but it still lacks in a lot of other areas for general video acquisition vs a camcorder.

I have a 5D MKII and, as much as I love the video capture quality of the 5D MKII, my 10 year old 3-chip DV camcorder beats the dSLR for general utility and long-format work any day.

BTW I have 3 Canon dRebels. (The Rebel T2i/550D is the most recently introduced in this line and I have older models.) The dRebel cameras are great fun and perfect for many family oriented events and mine have even done wedding work for hire. (A camera for my assistant.) I have not had any problem with durability and mine have held heavy lenses to 500mm. I don't baby them but I don't abuse them either. They are not designed for either the speed or "ultimate" durability of the better models but they are still pretty tough little cameras.

Malte

Hijacking a little...
I am also considering the 7D. Which "normal" prime would you get for it if you had no other lenses, the 35 1.4 or the 50 1.2? I shoot mainly portraits and I greatly value the video option.

Malte

colourbox

Malte wrote:

I am also considering the 7D. Which "normal" prime would you get for it if you had no other lenses, the 35 1.4 or the 50 1.2? I shoot mainly portraits and I greatly value the video option.

Since the 7D is the smaller APS-C sensor I would go for the 35 1.4 if it is your only lens. I admit I have not used it but I do have a 50 and it's tight sometimes, since on the smaller sensor a 50mm is a slight telephoto. Indoors you sometimes feel you can't back up in the room enough especially if there is more than one person in the shot. I guess if you're always going to shoot one person's headshot the 50mm makes sense as your only prime. I'm actually thinking of adding a fast 35 to the arsenal.

Nicko

i think ill go with the 7D for the extra performance and durablility.
i am taking a video production course at uni so the "indie" style will suit.

i looked at the "Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM" but it is probably just a bit expensive.
Would you recommend the "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8" over the "Canon 17-40", how do they compare in terms of optics and the "L" grade sealing.

i may just get the one good lens and then wait till i can save for the "canon 70-200".

Brett1000

Nicko wrote:

i think ill go with the 7D for the extra performance and durablility.
i am taking a video production course at uni so the "indie" style will suit.

i looked at the "Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM" but it is probably just a bit expensive.
Would you recommend the "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8" over the "Canon 17-40", how do they compare in terms of optics and the "L" grade sealing.

Both the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55 perform much better on crop models than the Canon 17-40. I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc and it's a good sharp zoom lens.

ziggy53

Nicko wrote:

i think ill go with the 7D for the extra performance and durablility.
i am taking a video production course at uni so the "indie" style will suit.

i looked at the "Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM" but it is probably just a bit expensive.
Would you recommend the "Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8" over the "Canon 17-40", how do they compare in terms of optics and the "L" grade sealing.

i may just get the one good lens and then wait till i can save for the "canon 70-200".

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is technically the sharper lens, but the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) might be preferred for video application for the larger aperture and longer range.

In "indie" film production you will be exposed to the terms:

Rack focus
Pull focus
Focus tracking/follow focus

... as methods of using focus control to either shift attention to or from one subject to another or to track a subject with focus while keeping the background/foreground somewhat out of focus as a means of separating the subject from the background/foreground.

An f4 lens will have less desirable qualities for these focus techniques than an f2.8 lens. The Canon 17-40mm does have a smoother focus control, but I would prefer the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 for the better aperture and range.

I also strongly suggest at very least that you get the Canon 50mm, f1.8 as a cheap lens with an even wider aperture to provide an even better limit on DOF when you need it. The Canon 50mm, f1.4 USM is actually considerably more desirable for both aperture and build, but it's also more expensive.

I highly recommend you review the following link for common film and movie production terms and definitions:

http://homepage.newschool.edu/~schlemoj/film_courses/glossary_of_film_terms/glossary.html

Nicko

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is technically the sharper lens, but the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) might be preferred for video application for the larger aperture and longer range.

In "indie" film production you will be exposed to the terms:

Rack focus
Pull focus
Focus tracking/follow focus

... as methods of using focus control to either shift attention to or from one subject to another or to track a subject with focus while keeping the background/foreground somewhat out of focus as a means of separating the subject from the background/foreground.

An f4 lens will have less desirable qualities for these focus techniques than an f2.8 lens. The Canon 17-40mm does have a smoother focus control, but I would prefer the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 for the better aperture and range.

I also strongly suggest at very least that you get the Canon 50mm, f1.8 as a cheap lens with an even wider aperture to provide an even better limit on DOF when you need it. The Canon 50mm, f1.4 USM is actually considerably more desirable for both aperture and build, but it's also more expensive.

I highly recommend you review the following link for common film and movie production terms and definitions:

http://homepage.newschool.edu/~schlemoj/film_courses/glossary_of_film_terms/glossary.html

thanks, that has helped a lot.

one last question, how would that tamron lens, 17-50 f2.8, compare to the kit lenses, "15-85 IS USM" and "17-85 IS USM"?

Brett1000

Nicko wrote:

thanks, that has helped a lot.

one last question, how would that tamron lens, 17-50 f2.8, compare to the kit lenses, "15-85 IS USM" and "17-85 IS USM"?

you can compare different lens here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

or at www.photozone.de

ziggy53

Nicko wrote:

thanks, that has helped a lot.

one last question, how would that tamron lens, 17-50 f2.8, compare to the kit lenses, "15-85 IS USM" and "17-85 IS USM"?

The Canon

EF-S 15-85mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 17-85mm, f4-5.6 IS USM

... are very versatile zoom ranges and the 15-85mm appears to be somewhat better optically. They both have pretty slow apertures and an f2.8 lens will be better for video work IMO.

The link that Brett provided will give much more detail on the differences for still photography applications.

jmphotocraft

ziggy53 wrote:

If you can swing it, a very usable 2 lens kit is:

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

This is the most versatile combo you will ever find. The 17-55 is without peer on a crop camera, and the 70-200/4LIS is very portable. It weighs half that of the f/2.8 and is smaller and sharper! When I had a 40D, I'd take this combo snowboarding no problem.

You bought an $1800 camera. Why waste your money on a 55-250?

The 17-40 should only be considered over the 17-55 if you absolutely need the weather sealing.

Malte

Hey guys, I have a follow up question, potentially dumb. Is there a max apeture opening that's useful on a crop sensor? I'm thinking since alot of the image circle hits outside a 1.6 crop factor sensor, will that sensor benefit, light sensitivity wise, from say a F1.2 apeture opening?

Thanks!

Malte

jmphotocraft

Malte wrote:

Hey guys, I have a follow up question, potentially dumb. Is there a max apeture opening that's useful on a crop sensor? I'm thinking since alot of the image circle hits outside a 1.6 crop factor sensor, will that sensor benefit, light sensitivity wise, from say a F1.2 apeture opening?

Thanks!

Malte

Yes. The physics of lenses is neat. Every part of the lens projects every part of the image. The circular diaphragm could actually be replaced by a "window shade" type straight curtain, which for example, could be pulled down over the top half the lens, and the image projected would still be complete, only dimmer. (they don't do that because that wouldn't utilize the best part of the lens, the middle.)

So yes, the area close to the edge of any lens affects the whole image, crop sensor or not.

Malte

jmphotocraft wrote:

Yes. The physics of lenses is neat. Every part of the lens projects every part of the image. The circular diaphragm could actually be replaced by a "window shade" type straight curtain, which for example, could be pulled down over the top half the lens to stop it down, and the image projected would still be complete, only dimmer. (they don't do that because that wouldn't utilize the best part of the lens, the middle.)

So yes, the outer edge area of any lens affects the whole image, crop sensor or not.

Thanks Jack!

Malte

Malte

jmphotocraft wrote:

Yes. The physics of lenses is neat. Every part of the lens projects every part of the image. The circular diaphragm could actually be replaced by a "window shade" type straight curtain, which for example, could be pulled down over the top half the lens, and the image projected would still be complete, only dimmer. (they don't do that because that wouldn't utilize the best part of the lens, the middle.)

So yes, the area close to the edge of any lens affects the whole image, crop sensor or not.

So, thinking more on this, does this mean that an EF lens labeled say F1.8 provides more light sensitivity to a camera with a crop sensor than an EF-S lens lebeled F1.8 would?

Malte

ziggy53

Malte wrote:

So, thinking more on this, does this mean that an EF lens labeled say F1.8 provides more light sensitivity to a camera with a crop sensor than an EF-S lens lebeled F1.8 would?

Malte

No, a lens properly constructed and properly designated as an f1.8 lens will be the same efficiency whether EF (full-frame coverage) or EF-S (crop coverage). Typically, light fall-off at the edges (vignetting) is greater on the EF-S lenses however. EF lenses benefit on a crop body by using the colloquially named "sweet spot" of the lens, that is the center of the projected image.

ABCL

Also, don't forget the prime lenses! Most of Canon's primes (even the non L ones) are sharp, fast and superb quality.

If you are set on a 7D, a nice combo for landscape / portraits would be:

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L (can swap for the 17-40mm zoom L if needed)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L (could make this the 85mm L if you got the zoom)

I have no idea how far 3 - 4K in $ stretches, but in the UK, a 7D with these two lenses with 3 - 4K spending money is doable.

Malte

ziggy53 wrote:

No, a lens properly constructed and properly designated as an f1.8 lens will be the same efficiency whether EF (full-frame coverage) or EF-S (crop coverage). Typically, light fall-off at the edges (vignetting) is greater on the EF-S lenses however. EF lenses benefit on a crop body by using the colloquially named "sweet spot" of the lens, that is the center of the projected image.

Thanks Ziggy!

Malte