lenses for my 7D - please help!

[Axilrod]

Why is everyone saying the 50L isn't good for video?  Of course none of the DSLR lenses are technically good for video (except Zeiss stuff), but I've gotten some absolutely stunning footage with my 50L.  I rarely shoot below f/2 with it, but it's sharpness, contrast, and bokeh look friggin amazing on stills or video, if you can say it's not good for video you're saying it's not good for stills. 

But OP I agree with some of the others that the 7D may not be the ideal camera for what you're trying to do, it suffers from rolling shutter artifacts pretty badly and if you're going to be doing whip pans of skiers passing by you're going to end up with a whole bunch of unusable footage, and there isn't really any way around that.  There are plenty of other alternatives out there nowadays, I'd seriously consider something else before dumping anymore money into it.  DSLR's are great for some stuff, like shooting in a fixed studio environment, but for what you're describing I think they are a poor choice.

If you do insist on sticking with a DSLR, I think the 70-200mm will feel much too long on a 7D, no way you'll be able to get steady footage outside of shooting on a tripod.  I think the 35L would be a better choice if going with primes, as even 50mm is pretty long on a 7D. 

I think you need an ultra-wide for sure, you can get lots of great landscape shots and some dramatic closeups of skiers.  For $2300 I'd suggest:
- Tokina 11-16mm- around $600 and super wide on a 7D
- Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS - $800-900 used
-Canon 70-200 f/4 - $700

You'd have a long range covered and be able to do quite a bit of stuff with those lenses.  I think if you're constantly shooting outside you probably don't want to have to deal with primes and switching lenses all the time, these lenses will give you some flexibility.
 
Now I don't know if that budget was supposed to include accessories too, but you're going to need some other stuff outside of lenses.  A shoulder rig of some sort, possible a steadicam for shooting while skiing, tripod, monitor or evf, etc.   

[Axilrod]

I don't understand why people are buying still cameras to shoot video. Do they think it's vogue? Who here would want to ski down a mountain slope with a 7D pasted to their face or clumsily clunking at their chest when there are sooo many well worth camcorders out there that will fit in one's pocket and create stunning HD video at clip sizes up to hours on end(not at the 12 or 24 minute limit as the 7D), have mulitiple video scene choices, settings, and auto focus to choose from. Wow, snowcast, good luck. How about sharing your experiences with the rest of us when you return? Cheers!      ps - stock up on compact flash cards too

Vogue?  Seriously?  Large sensors and crazy low-light capabilities for a ridiculously low price (relatively).  Plus delicious bokeh.  Plus the versatility of interchangeable lenses.  When the 5DII came out the only other way you could get shallow DOF like that was with the RED One, which cost about 10x as much. It has that cinematic look/feel for $2500 (plus one of the largest sensors in the world), that was a huge thing at the time.  Granted they have come out with camcorder alternatives since then, but they are still pretty damn expensive.  Traditional camcorders have tiny chips that are a fraction of the size of APS-C or FF sensors, that's why everything is always in focus even stuff far in the background.  It's a compromise, they aren't perfect for everything, but they look damn good for what they are.  I've been shooting videos with DSLRs for going on 3 years and it's been a pain here and there, but the image quality is worth it.  I mean they used them on House and 24, why wouldn't consumers follow suit?  If they are good enough for network TV they are good enough for anyone.

Now I agree with you that for this guy's situation they aren't the ideal choice, but outside of this there are plenty of situations that they work very well in.

[Pieces Of E]

Well, that's what this thread was about - shooting downhill skiing with a 7D, not shooting tv shows like House or 24 OR comparing dslr's to RED video cameras. 'Delicious bokeh' means nothing to sports video shooting. 

[Axilrod]

Well, that's what this thread was about - shooting downhill skiing with a 7D, not shooting tv shows like House or 24 OR comparing dslr's to RED video cameras. 'Delicious bokeh' means nothing to sports video shooting.

The guy said "I don't know why people are buying still cameras to shoot video."  Then he said "do they think it's vogue?"  "People" and "they" would imply that he was directing that at everyone shooting video with DSLRs, then using this guy as an example.  I was explaining why people use DSLR's for video in general (which you were aware of based on your response), but you wanted to unleash as much negativity as possible, so you acted like I was talking about sports shooting and made condescending comments even though you knew that wasn't what I was talking about.  Pick one dude, you can't have it both ways.  I responded to the OP's question in detail in the post prior to that, stop being a troll.  Are you that angry that I said delicious bokeh? I was being sarcastic, it's the main thing all the noobs are attracted to.   

I'm sure this guys reasons aren't any different than anyone else's, he wants the image quality/shallow DOF (why the heck would he want to deal with dslrs otherwise?).  Are you saying you've never seen a sports video with shallow DOF?  Come on man it's like the most overused thing in video right now, everyone uses it even if it's totally uncalled for.  That's the whole reason people use these things in the first place and are willing to make all the sacrifices necessary to make these things shoot video comfortably, because of the IQ relative to camcorders.   


   

[Pieces Of E]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings expressing my opinions and views. I wish him and you all the best with your video endeavours using your your Canon dslr's.

[syder]

The 50L is a superb lens but its overkill for video. Its meant for high speed stills but you wont notice the difference in video. Get the 50mm 1.4 canon

+1
You really won't need the 50L, it's a great lens, sure. But that single step won't make difference. Also, if you would've ever tried to focus even with the 50mm f/1.4 USM at wide open aperture, you'd realize how insane f/1.2 would be. And for video even worse!
I would also consider the 50mm f/1.8, although it's made out of plastic, optically it's superb! Some do even say that the f/1.8 is superior to the f/1.4. I don't think so, but they're really close together in points of IQ and sharpness.

Focussing with the 50/f1.4 wide open is fine... Just get a z-finder/lcdvf so that you can see what you're doing.

Focussing with the 50/f1.8 wide open is horrible. The miniscule tensionless focus ring with minimal travel is a nightmare for accurate focus pulling. It really isn't an appropriate lens for video unless you absolutely cannot afford the 50/1.4

The 50/1.2 is nice, but overkill for your needs. The 1/2 stop is actually quite a big difference in extreme low light, but that isn't what you're doing.

As everyone else has said though, based on what you've suggested your usage is, a dedicated camcorder would be a better choice.

People haven't mentioned extras, which are a must for DSLR cinematography - Z-finder, variable ND filters, external mic, external sound recorder, some kind of support rig etc - with something like a sony Z7/panasonic HVX200 the only one of those you'd need to consider would be a shotgun mic (and even then the sound that comes with those cameras is miles ahead of what you get out of a dslr).