7D and Lenses

R.Jay · December 11, 2010

Hi, I have read a lot of views and comments about the Canon 7D on Dgrin - so it looks as if it will be a suitable upgrade to my 450D. However, the 7D has been out for a while - and suggestion of a '7D MKII' in the pipeline?
Also, apart from the 450D kit lenses, I also have a EF 50mm 1.4 and an EF 100mm Macro. Any suggestions for an EF Standard Zoom?

Cheers, Richard.

ziggy53 · December 11, 2010

The Canon 7D can use both EF and EF-S lenses. By far my recommendation for a standard zoom for the 7D is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. I absolutely adore this lens on any Canon crop 1.6x camera body. The optical quality is very much in Canon "L" territory although build quality is less than best, but suitable for the purpose.

AF is fast and sure and the stabilization is helpful in low-light with stationary or slow moving subjects.

There will certainly be a replacement for the Canon 7D in the future but if you need the camera right now it's a great model to have. Compared to the Canon dRebel XSi/450D it most certainly is a significant upgrade but the above lens will be an even more visual upgrade to your current kit lens. Given a choice I would suggest the lens upgrade first.

colourbox · December 12, 2010

I have both of the zooms above for my 7D, though I bought them for my Rebel originally, since yes, lens upgrades generally improve your images more than body upgrades. Ziggy is right on the money about the 17-55, it's wide, makes gorgeous images, and is f/2.8 fast and stabilized for low light. The 24-105L is not very wide, and limits you more in low light due to the f/4, but I love the images it makes when there's enough light, like outdoors on bright days.

divamum · December 12, 2010

All great suggestions above.

I will say that the 7d's resolution allows it to take full advantage of great glass, so if you have the bucks then it's worth going for the best on offer since you actually can genuinely see a difference with this camera (whereas with lower res cameras it's not so obvious)

That said, I still happily use my Tamron 17-50 with my 7d - the MkI (without IS) is a good, inexpensive walkaround lens that's a cut above the kit lens you have but won't break the bank. I'd probably opt for that or the Canon 17-55is if I needed 2.8; if not, then the 24-105is (I don't use it because I generally do need 2.8, but everybody who does seems to rave about it!).

chrisjohnson · December 12, 2010

The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens and build quality matches the 7D nicely. I also have the EF 100mm Macro: another great lens that should work well with 7D. Your 50mm has great reviews too.

I think it will be some time before a successor to 7D arrives. I would not wait for it.

macwest · December 12, 2010

7D with 17-55mm 2.8
http://the-wests.smugmug.com/Other/canon-7d/IMG0081/1115544581_FSu5v-X3.jpg

R.Jay · December 13, 2010

Thanks everyone for your feedback and advice - it is much appreciated.

Looks like it will be the 17-55 first - and then if I talk to Santa

and make lots of promises that I will not be able to keep

the 7D.

Cheers, Richard.

Howzit · December 13, 2010

There seem to be a couple of great lenses for the Canon 18mp cameras. 17-55 f2.8, 24-105 f4 & 15-85 3.5-5.6. However, with all this talk about the 17-55 f2.8 I'm about ready to pull the trigger on this 60D + 17-55 kit from Adorama for $1919.00.

Grainbelt · December 14, 2010

Howzit wrote: »

However, with all this talk about the 17-55 f2.8 I'm about ready to pull the trigger on this 60D + 17-55 kit from Adorama for $1919.00.

$2k for the first DSLR, eh? Damn. Not the way I'd do it, but more power to ya, that'd be a hell of a combo.

Howzit · December 15, 2010

Grainbelt wrote: »

$2k for the first DSLR, eh? Damn. Not the way I'd do it, but more power to ya, that'd be a hell of a combo.

Yeah, yeah, I know and a 60D with kit lens is closer to my original budget but the 7D, 60D and 550D deserve a decent lens, no?

studio1972 · December 16, 2010

Have you considered a used (but mint) 5D Mk1 from ebay. I recently got one for under £700 and it is an excellent camera, and will work much better with EF lenses than the 7D.

rpcrowe · December 18, 2010

+1 for Ziggy!

ziggy53 wrote: »

The Canon 7D can use both EF and EF-S lenses. By far my recommendation for a standard zoom for the 7D is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. I absolutely adore this lens on any Canon crop 1.6x camera body. The optical quality is very much in Canon "L" territory although build quality is less than best, but suitable for the purpose.

AF is fast and sure and the stabilization is helpful in low-light with stationary or slow moving subjects.

There will certainly be a replacement for the Canon 7D in the future but if you need the camera right now it's a great model to have. Compared to the Canon dRebel XSi/450D it most certainly is a significant upgrade but the above lens will be an even more visual upgrade to your current kit lens. Given a choice I would suggest the lens upgrade first.

The 7D would be a great upgrade. However, as Ziggy mentioned, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on your present camera will provide immediate and better image quality in comparison with any kit lens. The 17-55mm will make any camera compatible with an EF-S lens into a very viable tool.

I absolutely love my 17-55mm lens and use it in tandem with the fantastic 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a pair of 1.6x bodies. This is a wonderful and absolutely versatile combination and the best I have ever used in 50+ years of photography.

BTW: Although I would certainly like the 7D; I use my 17-55mm and 70-200mm lenses on a pair of older 30D and 40D cameras and believe that they can produce excellent imagery. See my China galleries on smugmug.com for a sampling of images shot exclusively with these two cameras and lenses...
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/

Wachel · December 20, 2010

You can't go wrong with the 17-55 2.8. I absolutely love it. I first used it on my Rebel Xti and it is now my primary lens on my 7D. Although, I have just added a 70-200 2.8 IS II to the stable so I am sure my 17-55 will take a back seat for a bit!

ThatCanonGuy · December 21, 2010

richy wrote: »

Very true, the 5d 'classic' has an almost cultish and well deserved following. The AF is not intended for the same use as a 7d but it still is solid.
Great glass is a good investment, its usually better to save a bit longer and get a body and glass that will do the job rather than underbuying and throwing away money having to replace them. The exception being L glass thhat usually sells for something like 80-90% of its purchase price assuming you paid a fair price and it hasnt dropped heavily in price (as a new lens design like the 70-200 2.8 II did and the 70-300 L will) or been replaced.

The AF is the same as the 5D2, right? And does the 5D1 have the same sensor as the 1Ds(12.8mp)?

ziggy53 · December 21, 2010

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

The AF is the same as the 5D2, right? And does the 5D1 have the same sensor as the 1Ds(12.8mp)?

The AF on the Canon 5D MKII does appear to work more quickly than does the AF on the original 5D. Part of the explanation could be that the 5D MKII has a Digic IV processor while the 5D has a Digic II. AF accuracy is similar in good light between the 2 cameras. AF layout appears to be identical on the 2 cameras and they both have invisible "helper" AF points which engage during AI-Servo focus mode.

The imager of the 5D MKII is very similar to that in the 1Ds MKIII except that the one in the 1Ds MKIII likely has more readout channels for faster transfer to the processor. Many folks do like the image results of the 5D MKII slightly better than that from the 1D MKIII so that it's likely that the imaging section in the 5D MKII is slightly tweaked especially in terms of high-ISO noise.

Edit: The 5D MKII has video capabilities and 2 sizes of sRAW, both of which appear to be at least partly dependent on the imager, compared to the 1Ds MKIII which has no video capability and 1 - sRAW size.

catspaw · December 21, 2010

Grainbelt wrote: »

$2k for the first DSLR, eh? Damn. Not the way I'd do it, but more power to ya, that'd be a hell of a combo.

yeah, but depending on the camera background of the user, the DSLR can be outgrown VERY fast. My Nikon D50 lasted perhaps 6 months before I was ready for an upgrade .... alas, I had not the funds for an upgrade at that time. But I had a good background in film. So everyone is at a different point, with different knowledge, ability to learn as well as different amounts of time (and just brain cells) to devote to learning.

On some people a $2k DSLR would be wasted ---- on others it will be PERFECT.

ThatCanonGuy · December 22, 2010

On some people a $2k DSLR would be wasted ---- on others it will be PERFECT.

Some guy on a forum said that he had this friend, and the friend told him that he went to his camera store, bought a 5DII and a relatively cheap lens (i.e., not an L). So, he goes back to the store, and the sales guy there tells him that he definitely needs a 24-105, it's the only lens that'll do his 5DII justice. So he gets that. The whole point here, is that when this friend told this guy this, he followed it with a question: What is an f/stop?

Now THAT is 3K wasted

ziggy53 · December 22, 2010

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Some guy on a forum said that he had this friend, and the friend told him that he went to his camera store, bought a 5DII and a relatively cheap lens (i.e., not an L). So, he goes back to the store, and the sales guy there tells him that he definitely needs a 24-105, it's the only lens that'll do his 5DII justice. So he gets that. The whole point here, is that when this friend told this guy this, he followed it with a question: What is an f/stop?

Now THAT is 3K wasted

A lot of people are under the misconception that if they just "throw some money" at a problem, the problem will go away or at least improve. In photography that gets interpreted as a more expensive camera, when the main problem is that the user hasn't a clue about lighting, lenses, exposure, composition, post-processing, etc.

They wind up mad at the hardware/software involved because they cannot comprehend how "they" might be part of the fundamental and underlying problem in the first place. (Improper use, technique, ... inclusive.) Go figure ...

For anyone unsure about why they have photographic problems just send them here, to the Digital Grin. We are the ultimate solution.

clap

Ric Grupe · December 22, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

We are the ultimate solution.

Amen.

divamum · December 22, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

For anyone unsure about why they have photographic problems just send them here, to the Digital Grin. We are the ultimate solution. clap

Ziggy and dgrin ftw!!!

clap

sara505 · December 26, 2010

divamum wrote: »

All great suggestions above.

I will say that the 7d's resolution allows it to take full advantage of great glass, so if you have the bucks then it's worth going for the best on offer since you actually can genuinely see a difference with this camera (whereas with lower res cameras it's not so obvious)

That said, I still happily use my Tamron 17-50 with my 7d - the MkI (without IS) is a good, inexpensive walkaround lens that's a cut above the kit lens you have but won't break the bank. I'd probably opt for that or the Canon 17-55is if I needed 2.8; if not, then the 24-105is (I don't use it because I generally do need 2.8, but everybody who does seems to rave about it!).

This piqued my curiosity - "the 7d's resolution" - I feel really dumb asking this, but are you saying that resolution extends beyond the quality of the lens? Is this why, even with good glass, I often feel my 40D is lacking something? I've been on the verge of upgrading for a while, this comment is kicking me into high gear.

sara505 · December 29, 2010

Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by divamum

All great suggestions above.

I will say that the 7d's resolution allows it to take full advantage of great glass, so if you have the bucks then it's worth going for the best on offer since you actually can genuinely see a difference with this camera (whereas with lower res cameras it's not so obvious)

That said, I still happily use my Tamron 17-50 with my 7d - the MkI (without IS) is a good, inexpensive walkaround lens that's a cut above the kit lens you have but won't break the bank. I'd probably opt for that or the Canon 17-55is if I needed 2.8; if not, then the 24-105is (I don't use it because I generally do need 2.8, but everybody who does seems to rave about it!).

sara505 wrote: »

This piqued my curiosity - "the 7d's resolution" - I feel really dumb asking this, but are you saying that resolution extends beyond the quality of the lens? Is this why, even with good glass, I often feel my 40D is lacking something? I've been on the verge of upgrading for a while, this comment is kicking me into high gear.

I'm hoping someone will answer this question - thanks.

ziggy53 · December 29, 2010

sara505 wrote: »

This piqued my curiosity - "the 7d's resolution" - I feel really dumb asking this, but are you saying that resolution extends beyond the quality of the lens? Is this why, even with good glass, I often feel my 40D is lacking something? I've been on the verge of upgrading for a while, this comment is kicking me into high gear.

sara505 wrote: »

I'm hoping someone will answer this question - thanks.

There is no simple answer to this question. Certainly as pixel density increases the lens requirements to maintain the same image quality at the pixel level must also increase. It's simply a matter of "diminishing returns" in that it's not like the system will stop working altogether with a poor quality lens, you just won't be making as much use of the available resolution of the camera.

Higher pixel densities will generally be a benefit in terms of color purity just because you will have a larger net pixel count from which to interpolate both color and density during the demosaicing operation. The only problem is if random noise increases at a rate faster than pixel density.

Qarik · December 29, 2010

sara505 wrote: »

This piqued my curiosity - "the 7d's resolution" - I feel really dumb asking this, but are you saying that resolution extends beyond the quality of the lens? Is this why, even with good glass, I often feel my 40D is lacking something? I've been on the verge of upgrading for a while, this comment is kicking me into high gear.

yes. but it takes quite a bit of pixel density on good glass for the lens to tbe the limiter. Certainly the 5dmk2 and D3x type pixel density will be beyond the resolving power of most consumer grade lens. Even then it take some pixel peeping to notice. If you find your 40D "lacking" in some way, I am betting it has to do with noise or dynamic range..as a guess

divamum · December 29, 2010

Sorry, Sara - I missed this. I'm sure Ziggy and our other scientifically sound brethren here know the why's and wherefore's, which I don't, but I DO know that my best glass (ie 135L) looks even better with the 7d, and the resolution does show up flaws in some of the others which I never noticed when shooting with the xSi. Given the crazy pixel density the likelihood of my ever needing a 7d shot at 1:1 is pretty unlikely (thus making this not really a "real life" concern) but there's no doubt I can see a difference if I pixel peep....

pathfinder · December 29, 2010

The sobering truth is that really great gear will not make you a great photographer. That comes from better vision and understanding.. Once you own better gear, you quickly learn that it is not the camera, but the soul behind the viewfinder that really matters.

I find the discussion of image quality rather interesting, as I find my "best images" ( ie most Popular gallery ) have been shot with everything from a G9 and G10, a DMC-ZS7 ( P&S ), a 10D, a 20D, a 40D, 50D,7D, 5D, 5DMkIi and a couple 1 series cameras, with no distinction among any one of them.

And I will bet most folks cannot look at the images in my gallery and begin to guess which camera took which picture.... I have large prints from a G10, 10D, 40D, 50D, as well as 1DsMkII etc. Rarely is the actual pixel count a significant factor in the image. Rather lighting, composition and final image editing are usually more important. Only for images larger than 16 x 20 or larger, does the camera body really seem to matter that much in so far as the sensor itself. Obviously AF is better and faster on the newer, better cameras than the older versions, but I still have some images from a 10D that I still really like.

Good glass is, and always has been, more important than the body.

JMO of course.

Qarik · December 29, 2010

pathfinder wrote: »

The sobering truth is that really great gear will not make you a great photographer. That comes from better vision and understanding.. Once you own better gear, you quickly learn that it is not the camera, but the soul behind the viewfinder that really matters.

I find the discussion of image quality rather interesting, as I find my "best images" ( ie most Popular gallery ) have been shot with everything from a G9 and G10, a DMC-ZS7 ( P&S ), a 10D, a 20D, a 40D, 50D,7D, 5D, 5DMkIi and a couple 1 series cameras, with no distinction among any one of them.

And I will bet most folks cannot look at the images in my gallery and begin to guess which camera took which picture.... I have large prints from a G10, 10D, 40D, 50D, as well as 1DsMkII etc. Rarely is the actual pixel count a significant factor in the image. Rather lighting, composition and final image editing are usually more important. Only for images larger than 16 x 20 or larger, does the camera body really seem to matter that much in so far as the sensor itself. Obviously AF is better and faster on the newer, better cameras than the older versions, but I still have some images from a 10D that I still really like.

Good glass is, and always has been, more important than the body.

JMO of course.

The only caveat to that is..what images never made it off the editing room floor because your AF missed or your ISO couldn't reach or you couldn't adjust a setting fast enough or buffer filled up, etc. You never know about things that you never know.

pathfinder · December 29, 2010

Very true, but I find files that I delete with each camera. Usually not because they are out of focus, but poorly composed, mis-exposed, or just not sharp due to camera movement. And some are out of focus too. As I said, it is the soul behind the viewfinder that really matters.

If I am shooting airplanes, I will choose a crop body with good AF, all other things being equal.

For portraits or landscapes, I will tend to choose full frame, usually.

sara505 · December 29, 2010

pathfinder wrote: »

Very true, but I find files that I delete with each camera. Usually not because they are out of focus, but poorly composed, mis-exposed, or just not sharp due to camera movement. And some are out of focus too. As I said, it is the soul behind the viewfinder that really matters.

If I am shooting airplanes, I will choose a crop body with good AF, all other things being equal.

For portraits or landscapes, I will tend to choose full frame, usually.

Thanks - I agree with the fact that it's the person behind the camera rather than the camera, and certainly one could take a great photo with a pin-hole camera - some of my best photos are from my old G9-now-G12, if for no other reason than that it is always with me - all this being said, if you have the opportunity to have the best equipment possible - why the hell not?

I have a great lens - my most used lens is the 28-70 L, but sometimes I wonder - even knowing what I know, forty years later, about light and composition, etc. - if quality could be better. That's why, when I saw the bit about cameras having different resolutions - this was the first I had heard of it...I had to ask. But if none of it matters...well, then...OK...

pathfinder · December 29, 2010

Sara, pixel density does matter, and plays a significant role in how lenses affect images in crop camera bodies. Generally, as they cram more pixels into the same size sensor, the pixel wells get smaller, hence noiser especially at higher ISOs, but pixel pitch plays a role in diffraction limits as well.

Here is an article about the 50D and pixel density, and how demanding it is of fine glass. These comments are even more significant at the higher pitch of the 7D. The 50D was 15 Mpixels, the 7D is 18Mpixels, compared to the 10Mpixels of the 40D.

chrisjohnson · December 30, 2010

sara505 wrote: »

Thanks - I agree with the fact that it's the person behind the camera rather than the camera, and certainly one could take a great photo with a pin-hole camera - some of my best photos are from my old G9-now-G12, if for no other reason than that it is always with me - all this being said, if you have the opportunity to have the best equipment possible - why the hell not?

I have a great lens - my most used lens is the 28-70 L, but sometimes I wonder - even knowing what I know, forty years later, about light and composition, etc. - if quality could be better. That's why, when I saw the bit about cameras having different resolutions - this was the first I had heard of it...I had to ask. But if none of it matters...well, then...OK...

I wonder what you feel is the limitation of your 40D? You take some great pictures and I like your blog and other sites.

On the central question I think digital photography is a extensive system and most important to a photographer is knowing how to use the tools they have available. Sara, you seem to be on-top of your game. Everything is a trade-off because even with the best equipment money can buy we do not come close to the resolution and range of the human eye, let alone being able to feel the sun on our face or the wind in our hair.

I like the 40D still because it is a "sweet spot" camera. It has sufficient resolution to compare with the old 35mm and it is forgiving for all the lenses in the catalogue. It is not the bottleneck in my photography and nor are the lenses I use. I am still learning how to get more from the equipment I have. I don't want a new body because I would have to start a substantial part of the learning curve all over again, reading and understanding another 300 page manual for a relatively minor improvement in capability.

My dream camera would be the Leica M9. Convenient to carry everywhere, superb lightweight glass, better than DSLR image quality. (It works with lenses made 90 years ago, and those made 40 years ago are still current. Just goes to show that lenses are not the limiting factor). The Apple of the camera world. Shame I cannot afford it.

Any system needs to be in balance. I cannot imagine using a 70-200L on a Rebel because it would not feel right. Likewise my EF lenses do not feel exactly right on my crop camera, although they work ok. And don't underestimate the practicality of the Japanese designers - the kit lens is often the optimal choice. Japanese do not do marketing the way we do in US and Europe. Not being Japanese, we always like to feel we are a bit smarter than the designers and we do love to mix and match, coupling components that were never intended to work together.

So I come back to my first question. What is it you feel you are missing in your photography?

7D and Lenses

Comments