Lenses for Canon 7D

gopher78gopher78 Registered Users Posts: 50 Big grins
edited December 23, 2011 in Cameras
I'm wondering if I am covering myself with my lens selection.
I had a Pentax K10D with a Tamron 70-200 2.8 telephoto, Pentax 50 mm 2.8 macro, 17-50 2.8 wide angle and a Tamron 18-200 3.5 all in one lens

I have fun shooting mostly wildlife and also small insects etc.

I sold all of above and bought a Canon 7D. Bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 telephoto for animals,
Tamron 17-50 2.8 wide angle, and the Canon 100mm 2.8 IS macro for insects. Ran out of money....
Do I have myself pretty well covered without a smaller lighter all in one lens?

Comments

  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited December 22, 2011
    gopher78 wrote: »
    I'm wondering if I am covering myself with my lens selection.
    I had a Pentax K10D with a Tamron 70-200 2.8 telephoto, Pentax 50 mm 2.8 macro, 17-50 2.8 wide angle and a Tamron 18-200 3.5 all in one lens

    I have fun shooting mostly wildlife and also small insects etc.

    I sold all of above and bought a Canon 7D. Bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 telephoto for animals,
    Tamron 17-50 2.8 wide angle, and the Canon 100mm 2.8 IS macro for insects. Ran out of money....
    Do I have myself pretty well covered without a smaller lighter all in one lens?

    Depends on what you shoot. Shooting casual travel / adventures, I personally don't think there is any better lens for "adventure" photography than the 15-85 EF-S. Sharp as a tack, and who cares about aperture when you're gonna shoot stopped down from a tripod anyways?

    Or, if you shoot lots of general portraiture and low-light candids, personally I'd be lost without a 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8...

    So, that's the general idea. What do you mostly shoot? Sounds like nature / wildlife kinda stuff, in which case you're pretty much set as long as you can bear to lug all that stuff around. If you never care to go on a 10-20 mile backpacking trip, you may never need a lighter lens like the 15-85 EF-S. Maybe consider adding the Tokina 11-16 2.8 to your bag, for ultra-wide shots and fun things like star trails at night? You REALLY can't beat the 11-16 on a 7D for it's value as a lightweight, high-quality setup for nighttime and ultra-wide photography.

    Good luck!
    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited December 22, 2011
    if you plan to shoot much wildlife, the 70-200 will soon prove to be woefully short. since you have the f/2.8, i'd recommend picking up a 2x converter to turn it into a 140-400 - a much better focal length for critters! a 500 prime would be better still, but those are gawdawful expensive...
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • brvheartbrvheart Registered Users Posts: 434 Major grins
    edited December 22, 2011
    very interested in this as well. I just sold my 60D, picked up the 7D, kept my Tokina 11-16 which is on there 90% of the time and I have a 50mm 1.8 and a 28-105 non L - not sure what else to purchase - I do landscapes mostly, but am looking to expand to portraits/people as well.
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited December 23, 2011
    Matt gave you some excellent advice. A 50mm f/1.8 II for around $100 could be an option.

    brvheart, I have the 50 1.8 and 28-105 non-L too... I'd get a 85mm f/1.8 USM. That's going to be my next purchase. I've used it and it's a really nice lens.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,703 moderator
    edited December 23, 2011
    I find the EOS 70-300 IS L to be quite useful for wildlife with a 7D, if you are shooting in the open. It is light, sharp, and easy to handle, and while not cheap, much cheaper than a fast long prime. It does not work with a telextender, so do not plan on using one with it, Canon's TC will not mount on it.

    I am not a big fan of zooms, but this one it pretty good.

    The pixel density of the 7D demands good glass.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • brvheartbrvheart Registered Users Posts: 434 Major grins
    edited December 23, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Matt gave you some excellent advice. A 50mm f/1.8 II for around $100 could be an option.

    brvheart, I have the 50 1.8 and 28-105 non-L too... I'd get a 85mm f/1.8 USM. That's going to be my next purchase. I've used it and it's a really nice lens.
    Thank you :)
  • paddler4paddler4 Registered Users Posts: 976 Major grins
    edited December 23, 2011
    Bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 telephoto for animals,
    Tamron 17-50 2.8 wide angle, and the Canon 100mm 2.8 IS macro for insects. Ran out of money....
    Do I have myself pretty well covered without a smaller lighter all in one lens?

    Yes, you do, up to 200mm, and leaving off the "lighter". You have a small gap between your two zooms, but it is not all that big. My biggest concern, if I were you, is that I would not want to lug around the 70-200 f/2.8. For your uses, if I were going to buy a lens in that range, I would (and in fact did) buy a f/4 IS, which both weighs and costs about half as much. However, if you are locked into the 2.8, it's at least a fabulous lens.

    I agree that 200mm is likely to be short. I bought the 1.4 teleconverter for that reason. With the previous generation of converters, the 1.4 was considerably better than the 2.0. I don't know if that is true of the new ones.

    Re the recommendation of a 15-85: I agree that it is wonderful walk-around lens for that camera. I have one. However, personally, if I had your lenses, I don't think I would buy one, as your lenses cover most of that range. If you are finding that you want to go a little wider or often want to be in the range of 50+, then it would be a reasonable choice, but it is slower and much heavier than your Tamron.

    So all in all, I would go shoot a lot and worry about additional lenses only if and when you find that your current gear is really holding you back.
    http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.