I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

[awinphoto]

This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so... Please get clarification on that... then once you got that figured out, see if your school have a free rental dept and can rent both digitals as your classes get to digital. Heck by that time the 5d mark III may be out and you can purchase that, case closed.

 

[dstppy]

This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so... Please get clarification on that... then once you got that figured out, see if your school have a free rental dept and can rent both digitals as your classes get to digital. Heck by that time the 5d mark III may be out and you can purchase that, case closed.

If it's a 4-year school . . . the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM could actually be in the wild before she finishes.

Maybe . . . ;D

 

[bycostello]

With a crop camera you cut off the beauty on every side of the frame. :'(

So take a couple of steps back...

beat me to it..!! ;D

 

[bycostello]

With a crop camera you cut off the beauty on every side of the frame. :'(

So take a couple of steps back...

That's exactly why a crop body delivers deeper DoF - becaiase you need to take a couple of steps back to match the framing of that lens on a FF camera, and that increased distance means deeper DoF. Short of going out and building yourself a lens with f/0.75 for your APS-C camera, you'll never be able to achieve the shallow DoF of f/1.2 on FF. Personally, I often get comments on portraits about the simplicity of the backgrounds - in fact, there is often a lot going on back there, it's just effectively blurred out by the wide aperture of the 85L.

Having said that, I do agree that a 7D should be as useable for photo classes as a 5DII, and you can certainly achieve thin DoF with an APS-C sensor, if not quite as thin as with FF, much less MF.

but who really shoots at f1.2.. ok perhaps sometimes... but realisticlly no... most of my lenses are f2.8 so the sweet spot for the lens is around f4, which is where i normally shoot....

 

[lady]

The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

 

[awinphoto]

With a crop camera you cut off the beauty on every side of the frame. :'(

So take a couple of steps back...

That's exactly why a crop body delivers deeper DoF - becaiase you need to take a couple of steps back to match the framing of that lens on a FF camera, and that increased distance means deeper DoF. Short of going out and building yourself a lens with f/0.75 for your APS-C camera, you'll never be able to achieve the shallow DoF of f/1.2 on FF. Personally, I often get comments on portraits about the simplicity of the backgrounds - in fact, there is often a lot going on back there, it's just effectively blurred out by the wide aperture of the 85L.

Having said that, I do agree that a 7D should be as useable for photo classes as a 5DII, and you can certainly achieve thin DoF with an APS-C sensor, if not quite as thin as with FF, much less MF.

but who really shoots at f1.2.. ok perhaps sometimes... but realisticlly no... most of my lenses are f2.8 so the sweet spot for the lens is around f4, which is where i normally shoot....

Exactly... Even if you can shoot 1.2 on portraiture, the eyelash will be in focus but the eyeball wont or visa versa... Kinda freaks out clients when they see that cause they think in their minds it's out of focus... We as photographers can appreciate it but clients, unless they are fine art type of people wont buy them... on my 50 1.4 I shoot around 2.2 give or take... thats it's sweet spot for me on portraits... enough is in focus for the client to appreciate and a nice soft background.

 

[awinphoto]

The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 your total budget for all lenses?

 

[awinphoto]

The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Trying to keep under $1600... I kinda want to go with the 17-55 and 70-200 F4 L.. The 17-55 wont be able to move over to the 5d when you move over to full frame but will suit the 7D just fine. If you want to have lenses that will move over with you when you make the jump, you can get the 17-40 L and and a used 70-200 F4 IS or 70-200 F2.8 Non-IS. I would stay away with the 70-300 unless you are getting the L version... kinda soft and will cause hair to fall out. You can also try a sigma 70-200 2.8 which is around $900... They are good if you find a good copy (test a few at the camera store). This could get you started until you get some more money for fast primes...

Lastly you can pick up a 24-105 or 24-70... that would chew up most your money but you could pick up a fast prime like a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 or maybe 100 2.0 not much telephoto effect but will get your feet wet.

 

[kencathy]

All very good comments here. I would second the opinion that virtually any SLR or dSLR should be just fine for a photography course. I could guess a wide range zoom plus a bigger aperture normal (50mm or so with either full frame or APS-C) lens should be ample.

Being rather technical and mathematical in background, the real challenge to me in photography is composition (I am probably stating the obvious). I once saw among many booths at a photography exhibition a group of absolutely stunningly composed monochrome (sepia) pictures. A little blur, especially at the edges, seemed to be judiciously applied to good effect. Beautiful work.

I saw a moment later that these were taken with a pinhole camera.

Finally, I would throw in this piece of advice. A few years ago, I brought myself up to date equipment-wise by getting a Canon 30d with a nice zoom (24-104mm f/4 L) -- this was coming from an A1 (film SLR from ~1980). Wow, fully automatic! All kinds of automatically selected focus points, exposure calculated with even more measurements, white balance calculated for you, on and on.

I am embarrassed to tell you how long it took me to figure out I could do a much better job by setting the camera manually. Maybe not full manual all the time, but at least using aperture priority if not full manual exposure, manual focusing under some conditions, choosing RAW in contrasty situations, using flash fill-in controlled manually, and so forth. Maybe restating it, just knowing what the camera is doing, and taking control if it is not right.

So, maybe the moral here is: compose carefully, and don't let a fully automatic camera lull you into indifference to its operation.

 

[dtaylor]

The difference is noticeable rain. I live in Seattle and there are a lot of dark/overcast days. I also like to shoot at dusk. I'm not sure about how much of a difference it is on a DSLR than a compact, but on my Panasonic I'm at max ISO (1600) all the time when I do my evening shoots. You bring up some excellent points though, and the 7D may be the way to go for now despite the noise. Do you think the overcast days and dusk shoots will take a hit from choosing the 7D?

If you actually have to shoot at 1600 and make larger prints (i.e. 13x19 or 16x24), the 5D mkII will show a noticeable, but not huge, advantage in that it will yield less noise and more fine detail. It's not that the 7D will be bad, in fact it's quite good at higher ISOs. It's just that the 5D mkII is better there, particularly when it comes to retaining fine detail for a larger print.

That said unless you have to shoot handheld, a tripod is the best tool you can have for dusk shots, and that's true for either camera. I shoot at dusk all the time and almost always at ISO 100-400 from a tripod. At those ISOs it's a wash between these two sensors. You also have fast glass and IS options with a DSLR that you probably don't have on your compact, so you might find yourself shooting lower ISOs handheld.

Keep in mind the price difference. Even if you must shoot hand held at dusk, a 7D + 30 f/1.4, purchased with part of the savings, will easily beat a 5D mkII + f/4 zoom (for example) in low light.

 

[dtaylor]

While the 7D does have slightly more DR I would argue that the detail, better noise characteristics, and sharpness all are better with the 5D Classic. You don't even have to take my word for it.. See http://bit.ly/o75QZA

DxOmark ranks some DSLRs higher than medium format digital backs. And they can't get their dynamic range or noise tests right to save their lives. Anyone can personally disprove their DR results with a Stouffer transmission step wedge and about 10 minutes of time. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

See DPReview and Imaging Resource for accurate, reproducible and verifiable tests and results. DPReview's resolution chart test, and Imaging Resource's studio test (note the fabric threads), leave no question that the 7D out resolves the 5D. Color blotching is also noticeable in the IR 5D high ISO tests, but absent in the 7D tests. Color noise is death at high ISO. Luminance noise is much easier to deal with, and more pleasing where it remains.

For sharpness examples you can see Google.

Out of camera with neutral settings, FF images are sharper than APS-C images. But this difference is easily eliminated with slightly higher sharpening settings for the APS-C images, in camera or in post processing.

The 5D was a great camera, and continues to be a very good camera at the right price. But it's a bad recommendation against a 60D or 7D unless it's available at a much lower price. Typical used prices are excessive IMHO given the price of the 60D, though sometimes you can find a steal.

 

[dtaylor]

This whole debate is moot if the OP comes back and says the school wants her to shoot 35mm film for the first year or so...

I highly recommend the Canon EOS 3 in the event that the school wants her to shoot film for the first year. I love mine. The Rebels and Elans I've handled just don't compare in terms of build or feature set.

 

[V8Beast]

For your needs, I agree that the 7D is a better choice over the 5D. If you don't need the 7D's blazing frame rate and fancier AF, a 60D might be a better option. IMHO, for people just starting out in photography it's best to learn on the least expensive body you can get away with. Nicer bodies - with their superior dynamic range, contrast, and high ISO abilities - tend to hide your mistakes. It's these mistakes that you'll learn from, and it's these mistakes that will help in refining your technique, whether it's something as simple as learning how to properly expose a frame, or something more complex such as learning how to position your lighting equipment at the ideal angles and setting their power outputs accordingly.

There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place. That's fine if you're just taking images for fun, but it can impede on your ability to make a living as a working pro. A common scenario I see all the time with hobbyists making the transition to gigs that pay money is they spend so much time in post processing, that it limits the number assignments they can take on. The massive competition these days amongst working photogs means that gigs don't pay as much as they used to, so you end up having to turn around greater volumes of work in a short durations of time just to pay the bills. The "I'll just fix it in photoshop" trap is something that needs to be avoided. IMHO, starting out with a less expensive body that's less forgiving of user error will help you recognize those mistake more easily, allowing you to refine your technique.

I suppose the extreme example of those would be learning how to shoot on color slides. I thought it was rather barbaric how one of my instructors made us do this, but in retrospect, it helped immensely in learning the very basics of photography. There's zero margin for error with color slides, and in that regard, it makes 1.6:1 digital cameras look like medium format Hasselblads.

 

[Loswr]

but who really shoots at f1.2.. ok perhaps sometimes... but realisticlly no... most of my lenses are f2.8 so the sweet spot for the lens is around f4, which is where i normally shoot....

There are plenty of people (me included) that do shoot at f/1.2. Here are a couple thousand sample images for you. Granted, that's only about 5% of the number of images posted at f/4...but then, there aren't that many lenses that open up to f/1.2.

I agree that f/1.2 is tough for portraits due to the extremely thin DoF, but I often shoot with the 85L in the f/1.4 to f/1.8 range.

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

I assume you mean in addition to a general purpose zoom? A 70-200mm zoom on the 7D will be too long for many situations. As a general purpose zoom, IMO the best option for a 7D is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. That plus the 70-200mm f/4L would be a good combination, as awinphoto suggests. For portraits, I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 - it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of cost vs. IQ.

In terms of the 7D's ISO noise, it's an issue - I'd set aside a small part of your budget for DxO Optics Pro, which really does a great job of reducing noise in your RAW conversions (much better than Canon's DPP).

 

[dtaylor]

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

 

[awinphoto]

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

The 70-200 F4 is closer in the $650-700 range after the latest price increases but you can probably find a used one for cheaper on the used market... It's probably not a good general purpose lens so you will want either a fast prime or a 17-55 or 17-40 or look at the 24-105/24-70 plus maybe a 200mm 2.8 or other fast primes i listed in a prior thread.

 

[awinphoto]

There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place...

I suppose the extreme example of those would be learning how to shoot on color slides. I thought it was rather barbaric how one of my instructors made us do this, but in retrospect, it helped immensely in learning the very basics of photography. There's zero margin for error with color slides, and in that regard, it makes 1.6:1 digital cameras look like medium format Hasselblads.

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more. Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly. It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly. As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure. I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts? =) 2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more. Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly. It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly. As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure. I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts? =) 2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

I recall getting some pretty dark or washed out slides with that old ASA-10 slide film, but the ASA25 Kodachrome II was a huge improvement. Still, I have a few that were not perfect exposures from the 1960's, and I really cannot fix them, the detail is gone. In contrast, I inherited some 1930's and 1940's B&W negatives from my father, and the exposure latitude is wonderful. The scan to make beautiful prints even today, and were from a relatively simple camera.

However, when I look at my old 35mm negatives from the 1950's and 1960's, its amazing what a simple point and shoot digital camera does by comparison. and my old polaroid color prints are nearly faded away. I need to get them all scanned, I should have scanned them 15 years ago.

 

[awinphoto]

I wholeheartedly couldn't agree more. Back in the day, even negative film you had some room to budge with printing and developing and contrast filters... With slides, you had little to no room to fudge... You could ask the lab to push/pull the film to over/under develop but it could only do so much and it easily looked bad if not done perfectly. It also cost you money to do corrections such as push/pull and so screwing up exposure cost you dearly. As a student that was food money you were wasting away by not nailing exposure. I cant vouch for anybody but my school, but they pounded exposure in our feeble minds so much in most situations we could ballpark exposures just by looking at the scenes... Studios you 100% needed light/flash meters and with film, anyone forget the little treat of reciprocity and reciprocity charts? =) 2 second exposure turned into 1 minute exposures depending on your meter readings and what film you used.

I recall getting some pretty dark or washed out slides with that old ASA-10 slide film, but the ASA25 Kodachrome II was a huge improvement. Still, I have a few that were not perfect exposures from the 1960's, and I really cannot fix them, the detail is gone. In contrast, I inherited some 1930's and 1940's B&W negatives from my father, and the exposure latitude is wonderful. The scan to make beautiful prints even today, and were from a relatively simple camera.

However, when I look at my old 35mm negatives from the 1950's and 1960's, its amazing what a simple point and shoot digital camera does by comparison. and my old polaroid color prints are nearly faded away. I need to get them all scanned, I should have scanned them 15 years ago.

At school we made and kept charts just for reciprocity and used them for almost every studio shoot... tmax 400, meter 2 seconds, reality 45 seconds, meter 4 seconds, reality 1.25 minutes... etc... depending on the film we were using it would get brutal... set the camera on bulb, start the stopwatch, and go get a drink haha. God forbid you were bracketing exposures. One time using ultraviolet woods filtered strobes I burned out my strobes multi popping my exposure trying to build up the exposure... set off the school fire alarms, fire dept, haha. God bless film.

 

[lady]

So I got an update from the school I'd attend next year (or 2013). I need a full frame dslr, the school provides all film cameras for us. My 7D is acceptable, and is the absolute least expensive model they will accept. They say that if I can, I should upgrade to the 5D mk ii because I will need it after my first semester. Right now I'm going with the 7D for temporary practice and to build up a lens collection. I'll probably have both before school starts (even if it starts next september).

I'm also potentially picking up the 7D tomorrow. Potentially.

I'm hoping they have used lenses in stock.

For your needs, I agree that the 7D is a better choice over the 5D. If you don't need the 7D's blazing frame rate and fancier AF, a 60D might be a better option. IMHO, for people just starting out in photography it's best to learn on the least expensive body you can get away with. Nicer bodies - with their superior dynamic range, contrast, and high ISO abilities - tend to hide your mistakes. It's these mistakes that you'll learn from, and it's these mistakes that will help in refining your technique, whether it's something as simple as learning how to properly expose a frame, or something more complex such as learning how to position your lighting equipment at the ideal angles and setting their power outputs accordingly. There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place. That's fine if you're just taking images for fun, but it can impede on your ability to make a living as a working pro. A common scenario I see all the time with hobbyists making the transition to gigs that pay money is they spend so much time in post processing, that it limits the number assignments they can take on. The massive competition these days amongst working photogs means that gigs don't pay as much as they used to, so you end up having to turn around greater volumes of work in a short durations of time just to pay the bills. The "I'll just fix it in photoshop" trap is something that needs to be avoided. IMHO, starting out with a less expensive body that's less forgiving of user error will help you recognize those mistake more easily, allowing you to refine your technique.

I've been photographing things for years on manual settings with various compact camera models. I tested the 60D out for a day, but it felt far, far too cheap to work for me. The ergonomics were wrong, the photos were not being taken at the speed I would have liked, and the entire thing felt like plastic. I mean no offense to people who start out with the 60D, it's just that the 60D is not enough of an upgrade from my compact camera. When I rented the 7D I was in heaven, the entire thing just responded to me and did exactly what I wanted it to do. I have yet to fully try out the 5D Mk ii. The 7D is the cheapest one I will accept, and I do need it for the fast shutter speed (yes, even if I had the 5d I would need it).

Also, I very rarely need to correct error in photoshop when I shoot. Unfortunately now the problem I'm running into is that any of my cameras in my collection are just not professional enough to do what I want. I don't have enough control over them (with regards to aperture, iso, lens, etc) to get the effect I both desire and know how to achieve. My photography isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and I'm far from being pro, but trust me when I say the 60D would be a complete waste of money. Money that I cannot afford to waste.

Keep in mind the price difference. Even if you must shoot hand held at dusk, a 7D + 30 f/1.4, purchased with part of the savings, will easily beat a 5D mkII + f/4 zoom (for example) in low light.

Ah yes thank you, very helpful!

I assume you mean in addition to a general purpose zoom? A 70-200mm zoom on the 7D will be too long for many situations. As a general purpose zoom, IMO the best option for a 7D is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. That plus the 70-200mm f/4L would be a good combination, as awinphoto suggests. For portraits, I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 - it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of cost vs. IQ.

In terms of the 7D's ISO noise, it's an issue - I'd set aside a small part of your budget for DxO Optics Pro, which really does a great job of reducing noise in your RAW conversions (much better than Canon's DPP).

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55. This isn't just for portraits, I do need the zoom in the lens to shoot action from a distance. The EF 85mm seems like a great idea, though. Thank you!

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

No, it's $1600 max per lens right now (with taxes). The 70-200 f/4L is not something I thought of, though! I forgot about that model entirely. I'll test it at the photography shop today if I can. I'm possibly picking up my 7D tomorrow.

The sigma? Hmm I'll see if they have that in stock as well to give it a try, and I'll let you know.