buying a 7d now need critique on lenses.

[Thor]

Hi, Im buying a 7D and im just wondering about a few of the lenses that i am getting for it.

im stepping up from a fuji s9500 with a fixed lens. (entry level dslr and a few years old)

*Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM for sports and telezoom.

*Sigma 17-50 2.8 or a 50mm Canon f1.8. for portraits and walking around people shots.

*Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM or Sigma MACRO 70mm F2.8 EX DG Lens for macros.


*Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens for my landscapes.

These are the lenses i like. But i am up in arms about the macro lenses. what are the extension tubes and ad on macro lenses like for close up quality?

your criticisms are welcome.......:)

[Tannin]

Hi Thor,

*Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS. Good middle-of-the-range lens. Not outstanding, but a solid performer. Not to be confused with the ultra-cheap 75-300, or at the other end of the scale, the superb but expensive 70-200 Canons.

*Sigma 17-50 2.8 or a 50mm Canon f1.8. for portraits and walking around people shots. Get the Sigma out of those two. You will tire of the ultra-cheap Canon pretty fast.

*Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM or Sigma MACRO 70mm F2.8 EX DG Lens for macros. Of those two, get the Canon for sure. If you can, get the L Series Canon 100mm macro with IS, it's an absolute ripper. Expensive though. The older, non-IS one is still very, very good.


*Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens for my landscapes. I still haven't seen any reputable reviews of this not-so-new-anymore lens, but on paper it's a winner.

Tubes give you 100& quality, but you need to be using a decent lens. You can't use some cheap junk lens with an extension tube to get perfect results. A real macro lens is a great thing to have. Also, as well as the 100mm Canon, conside the CAnon 60mm macro. It's a brilliant lens, wonderful quality, reasonable price for what it is, and it would also be perfect as a walkaround portrait lens. Mine has given men endless pleasure and many a fine shot.

[rwg717]

Probably a bit on the expensive side for your budget but the canon EF24-105mm L IS is a magnificent lens for (grey) $1100-00, not too many others that will beat it. Also the EF300 f4.5 prime for telephoto shots.
As I said, above your budget but these are both lenses you will have for a long, long time and the early investment now will pay dividends in the long run. The A$ can't stay this high for too much longer and the purchase now could see massive savings in the future???:confused013
Richard

[Thor]

Hi Thor,

*Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS. Good middle-of-the-range lens. Not outstanding, but a solid performer. Not to be confused with the ultra-cheap 75-300, or at the other end of the scale, the superb but expensive 70-200 Canons.

*Sigma 17-50 2.8 or a 50mm Canon f1.8. for portraits and walking around people shots. Get the Sigma out of those two. You will tire of the ultra-cheap Canon pretty fast.

*Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM or Sigma MACRO 70mm F2.8 EX DG Lens for macros. Of those two, get the Canon for sure. If you can, get the L Series Canon 100mm macro with IS, it's an absolute ripper. Expensive though. The older, non-IS one is still very, very good.


*Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens for my landscapes. I still haven't seen any reputable reviews of this not-so-new-anymore lens, but on paper it's a winner.

Tubes give you 100& quality, but you need to be using a decent lens. You can't use some cheap junk lens with an extension tube to get perfect results. A real macro lens is a great thing to have. Also, as well as the 100mm Canon, conside the CAnon 60mm macro. It's a brilliant lens, wonderful quality, reasonable price for what it is, and it would also be perfect as a walkaround portrait lens. Mine has given men endless pleasure and many a fine shot.

Hi Tannin,

Thanks for your input. I can see some good bokeh coming from that cannon 60mm macro.


Probably a bit on the expensive side for your budget but the canon EF24-105mm L IS is a magnificent lens for (grey) $1100-00, not too many others that will beat it. Also the EF300 f4.5 prime for telephoto shots.
As I said, above your budget but these are both lenses you will have for a long, long time and the early investment now will pay dividends in the long run. The A$ can't stay this high for too much longer and the purchase now could see massive savings in the future???:confused013
Richard

Hi Richard,

I see what you are saying. but u r right about one thing. It will totally blow out my budget. :p as if it allready hasnt. I was squabbling over a few hundred per lens so id go up in price. This is the absolute max i wanna spend. But i will allways have them so i thought what the hek.

[Analog6]

If your budget allows, go for L lenses. Might as well have top quality from the get-go. The 24-105 f4 is a great all round lens and the 70-200 in any of its guises is also very good for most general photography.

They don't have to be new, you can pick up good used lenses from this forum, and there is nothing wrong with them, people just find the range is covered by other lens combinations they own, so sell ones they have 'grown out of'.

[pod3009]

Hi!

I have a 40D with the EF-S 17-85 lens and overall am happy with its performance. I spoke with a professional photographer recently who now uses a 7D in addition to his full frame Canon camera. He has a variety of "L" series lenses, but has found the new EF-S 15-85 lens does as good a job on the 7D as many of his "L" lenses. This is not a bad walk around lens either! The 15-85 is menat to be even better than my 17-85.

[dulvariprestige]

I'd give the 70-300 a miss and spend that extra $100 or so, and get the 70-200 f4 non IS, or IS version if you can afford it, it's a much much better lens, another option is the sigma 70-200 2.8.

[Thor]

ive found that canon has their 50mm f1.4 cheaper than the tamron 17-50..

Just another question.how good is the canon 100mm macro at portraits and walking around people shots?

[Mary Anne]

I agree give the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM a miss I did not like mine at all.
I spent a bit more and now have the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS and love it

Have you looked at the Tamron 90mm Macro its a little beauty for its low price and my most used Lens.
Its also a good portrait Lens.

Save and get one good Canon L lens at a time you will not be sorry like I was with the Kit lenses I got.
Which years ago cost almost as much as some of the Canon L lenses do now.

[Thor]

this is the list of lenses that i have decided on.

*Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
*Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. (im now tossing up on the 70-200 f/4 non IS ver) im going to do some numbers to see what focal distance i will be missing out on.
*Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens.
*Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 Lens.

[dulvariprestige]

this is the list of lenses that i have decided on.

*Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
*Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. (im now tossing up on the 70-200 f/4 non IS ver) im going to do some numbers to see what focal distance i will be missing out on.
*Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens.
*Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 Lens.
That extra 100mm you lose with the 70-200 can easily be fixed with a slight crop, and you will still have a much better than image at the end of the day.

This was the original shot at 200mm
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/dulvari/surf%20shots/original.jpg

And this is the cropped version
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/dulvari/surf%20shots/IMG_3454-2jpg2.jpg

[Mary Anne]

Later on you can buy a 1.4 extender for the Canon f/4 L 70-200mm lens and it becomes a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens..

[Pine]

I would recommend the following lenses:
- For a reasonable price the Canon 15-85 is a great lens that is very good for portraits and scenic shots .
- The Canon 100-400 L lens, although expensive, takes amazing fotos and my pick for a long lens.
- Although the old inexpensive 100mm macro is without IS it is crisp and clear and is also good for portraits.:rolleyes:

Regards

[Thor]

That extra 100mm you lose with the 70-200 can easily be fixed with a slight crop, and you will still have a much better than image at the end of the day.

This was the original shot at 200mm
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/dulvari/surf%20shots/original.jpg

And this is the cropped version
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/dulvari/surf%20shots/IMG_3454-2jpg2.jpg

They are pretty crisp shots.


Later on you can buy a 1.4 extender for the Canon f/4 L 70-200mm lens and it becomes a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens..

I was just looking at sigma's APO 100-300mm f4 EX DG HSM lens.

Thats a pretty looking bit of glass. And at fraction of the cost of a canon equivalent. But it's way more cash than i wanted to spend on a zoom lens. And my thinking is. If i was going to go out and get a extender to put on the end of my Canon f/4 L 70-200mm lens i might as well put a few hundered more in and buy the sigma..


I would recommend the following lenses:
- For a reasonable price the Canon 15-85 is a great lens that is very good for portraits and scenic shots .
- The Canon 100-400 L lens, although expensive, takes amazing fotos and my pick for a long lens.
- Although the old inexpensive 100mm macro is without IS it is crisp and clear and is also good for portraits.:rolleyes:

Regards

Decisions, Decisions.