What lenses are good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor? 1000$ limit :)

[Trovador]

I am reading up a lot on this, preparing for purchasing a 7D classic, and everyone seems to agree that the 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of excellent results, providing it is paired with a "good enough lens".

So, my question is: Which lenses ARE good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor?

Lots of answers are: "L mark II"

So, is it only L mark II that are "good enough" for 7D? Where do you draw the line? At L-glass?
Is the 85mm f1.8 good enough? The 70-300 non-L? the 17-40L?

If someone had a list of "good enough" lenses, I would (and I think others too) appreciate it a lot. Especially where to draw the line. L mark II are WAY out of my budget, so lets set the limit to 1000$.

Which lenses are good enough (sharp and resolving power) for the 18mp APS-C sensor, below 1000$?

Come on! Give me some nice recommendations! (3rd party is fine too)

To me, the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16 is a must.

Other than that, a 24-105L for standard all around zoom and a 50 1.4 for portraits/bokeh and you're all set. 

If you like macros, the 100 2.8L IS is awesome.

For samples of pics taken with the 7D and these lenses visit my webpage: www.ruddyflorentino.com

[IWLP]

In my two years with my 60D, the lenses that I feel give me eye-popping results (as a general rule) are:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm - Even in thumbnails I have a lot of "wow" reactions to this lens.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - Really nice lens. Between the IQ, constant f/2.8 and IS, it was hard to send this back to the rental house after I was done with it.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - Of course it's a great lens, and as long as I keep up my end of the bargain, the results are wonderful.

My 24-105 f/4L is more than adequate, but it hasn't produced quite the number of "wow" results the above lenses did. The 50mm f/1.8 II I use from time to time is plenty fine, as long as the focus hits (craps shoot), and when it's stopped down a touch.

As has been said before, what I'm seeing at pixel-peeping levels sometimes has no impact on printed results I'm seeing. I'm still tickled that the 18mp resolution gets me double-truck at 300dpi with a little room to spare.

Edit: Because it was mentioned previously, I also use the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 from time to time. IME, our copy of the 28-75 has poor contrast. The clunky autofocus and the backwards (Nikon) zoom make it less than pleasant to use. The 17-35 is soft compared to other lenses we have, and I find its contrast lacking, too, especially indoors with overhead lighting.

$.02

[Plamen]

So, my question is: Which lenses ARE good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor?

Lots of answers are: "L mark II"

Define "good enough".
 
Get quality EF-S lenses. They are better suited for your camera. The top EF-S lenses are the 17-55, the 10-22, and the EF-S 60 macro. Some people like the 15-85 as well. When (quality) EF-S lenses cannot fit the bill, get EF lenses, of course. If you find yourself shooting with fast primes wide open too often, then you would need to go FF.

[sdsr]

I am reading up a lot on this, preparing for purchasing a 7D classic, and everyone seems to agree that the 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of excellent results, providing it is paired with a "good enough lens".

So, my question is: Which lenses ARE good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor?

Which lenses are good enough (sharp and resolving power) for the 18mp APS-C sensor, below 1000$?

Are you concerned that an 18mp crop sensor will show up flaws in your lenses because your camera has a sensor that's inferior in some way (or will this be your first DSLR?)?  Or are you trying to find lenses that will maximize the potential the sensor has to conjure up sharp photos?  (One could also flip your question around: are lenses whose performance would be wasted on a 7D because they need, say, a FF sensor to show them off, so you would be wasting your money on them?) 

If your concern is with maximizing sharpness, you might as well just look at various resolution comparisons and charts of the sort you'll find at The Digital Picture, photozone, lenstip, etc.  Almost all Canon's primes are very sharp in the center, including the cheapest (their flaws tend to be confined to edges and corners and thus are much less in evidence, if at all, on crop-sensor cameras), and so are some of their cheaper zooms; plenty of superb photos have been taken with the 50mm 1.8....

But assuming you already have a lens or three, why don't you use them on your 7D and see how they perform?  If you're not satisfied, note their deficiencies and then come back and ask if there are better alternatives. But you may be pleasantly surprised. Plus, as others have noted, depending on how you view your photos and how critical your eye is, you may often conclude that the differences among lenses is exaggerated.   

[RS2021]

Because the post is rather broad...and has generated random lists of micky mouse lenses...here is some random lens porn for you boys from flikr

I dont envy the guy he seems very humble.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41560617@N07/6232077848/#sizes/o/in/photostream/

[RS2021]

Some of his lenses are dated but this link seems to be from a couple of years ago.

[Studio1930]

Most of these are good. 

https://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

[ChilledXpress]

Any lens under 1000$ is going to work, the 7D is not a mythical beast that works with only the finest lenses... It all depends on what you need for the job.

Quite a few of these are used and under a thousand... 17-40L, 100L, 300L, 135L, 35L... Sigma 15mm, Sigma 10-20, 40mm pancake, 50 1.4 or 1.8. I use these for work and I have had no problems buying used. So far, knock on wood


Giggity, Giggity... Giggity Goooo!!! by David KM, on Flickr

[mrzero]

And the hilarity ensues.  I think it's a totally valid question.  If L lenses were all $200, everybody would just collect them like stamps and be on their merry way.  They aren't, so those of us on a stricter budget wonder what affordable lens will be worth it and what lens won't.  I wonder what non-L lenses some of our folks have in their bags that they won't list in their signature, or sold and wish they hadn't.

For wide angle on crop, I really like my 20mm f/2.8.  Other full-frame future-proofers go for the 17-40/4L.  Neither has the extra wide angle of the 10-22 that everyone lauds.

For a "normal" prime on crop, I just bought a 28mm f/1.8 and I'm happy, although it doesn't get much love on the internets.  The older 35 f/2, or the 28 f/2.8, are easier on the budget.  I think the 28/1.8 hits the sweet spot of quality full-frame lens, before everyone had to start thinking in terms of two separate lens line-ups.

The 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and 40/2.8 all get excellent reviews (considering their price points).  On crop, they are more like portrait lenses than normal.  For super-cheap macro, add some fully automatic extension tubes.

For proper macro on a budget, the 100mm f/28 USM produces excellent pictures and doubles as a fast telephoto/portrait lens.  No IS, no focus limiter, but full-time manual focus.

I don't know about the higher-level EF-S zooms.  They are probably better than the older full frame primes I'm spouting off about, but I like fast lenses that I won't have to resell when I upgrade. 

[mbpics]

7D classic

Is that what we're calling it now?

[sagittariansrock]

Since the overwhelming majority of available lenses perform very well as mentioned in previous posts, I'd mention the only ones I wasn't very impressed with on my 7D (Not that they are bad, just not great). Again, YMMV, and it may have been a copy issue.
1. 28-135mm IS
2. 17-40mm L
3. 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6
4. 50mm f/1.8 I
5. 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
6. 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
7. 50mm f/1.4

FYI, these lenses (<$ 1000, at least used) "exceeded expectations"
1. 10-22mm
2. 11-16 Tokina
3. 16-28 Tokina
4. 24-105mm L
5. 70-300mm VC USD Tamron
6. 50mm f/1.8 II
7. 70-300mm L
8. 70-200mm f/4
9. 70-200mm f/4 IS
10. 15-85mm
11. 17-55mm
12. 100mm L

[RS2021]

My post was tongue-in-cheek....not to be taken seriously.   
For crop sensors I wont hesitate to recommend canon's 28 f1.8 or 50 1.4 ...they also hold their own on full frame.

As so often said here, a picture is more than the lens or resolution of the sensor...people who poo-poo kit zooms even on crops should see some of the excellent images on Flickr from people with limited gear and funds but extraordinary talent and creativity make.

[TeenTog]

For sure the 15-85 f/2.5-5.6 IS USM. Its a great focal length for a "walking around" lens in situatioins when you only want to bring one. It's pretty sharp too (For a non-L lens). It's probaby the best bang for your buch in the under $1000 price range. I would also go for the 17-40 f/4L USM if you are into shooting landscapes. Its about $750, and some people even say that its sharper than 'the pricier 16-35. Those are my two best reccomendations for this category.

[7enderbender]

I am reading up a lot on this, preparing for purchasing a 7D classic, and everyone seems to agree that the 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of excellent results, providing it is paired with a "good enough lens".

So, my question is: Which lenses ARE good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor?

Lots of answers are: "L mark II"

So, is it only L mark II that are "good enough" for 7D? Where do you draw the line? At L-glass?
Is the 85mm f1.8 good enough? The 70-300 non-L? the 17-40L?

If someone had a list of "good enough" lenses, I would (and I think others too) appreciate it a lot. Especially where to draw the line. L mark II are WAY out of my budget, so lets set the limit to 1000$.

Which lenses are good enough (sharp and resolving power) for the 18mp APS-C sensor, below 1000$?

Come on! Give me some nice recommendations! (3rd party is fine too)

Like others have said already there is no right or wrong answer here. I would go down the decision tree by starting with what focal length(s) you want, if you like primes or zooms or both, if you're interested in shallow depth of field (and hence want to look at fast primes perhaps) - and then your budget. The whole sharpness and resolving power thing is a bit overrated in my opinion.

There are lots of very affordable options out there. The least rewarding will likely be the cheap do-it-all zooms but you probably already know that. As far as primes go dare I say that ALL Canon EF primes are very good. Same is probably true for the better off-brands such as Sigma. You may even find the occasional cheap Chinese (or whatever) manual focus nugget that is worth playing with.

So it's really more a question what style of photography you want and from there decide if it's worth for you getting one or two of the somehow nicer lenses that are "better" in various ways. It's not just sharpness.