What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)

[NormanBates]

L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling

if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later

the only L glass I would consider if I had APS-C and didn't plan to eventually go for fullframe would be primes, and even then only if I had money to spare, otherwise the non-L primes should be enough for most cases (24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)

if you're looking for zooms, consider:
* tokina 11-16 f/2.8
* tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
* canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

these are WAY better than L counterparts, at a fraction of the price (but they won't work on full-frame)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html

 

[briansquibb]

L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling

if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later

the only L glass I would consider if I had APS-C and didn't plan to eventually go for fullframe would be primes, and even then only if I had money to spare, otherwise the non-L primes should be enough for most cases (24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)

if you're looking for zooms, consider:
* tokina 11-16 f/2.8
* tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
* canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

these are WAY better than L counterparts, at a fraction of the price (but they won't work on full-frame)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html

So the 70-200 f/2.8II is bling on a 7D ..... I guess you are using the 55-250 then?

Even the 70-300L is a great lens on a 1.6

I regularly lend my L lens to 1.6 user - including the 400 f/2.8 to a 1000D owner 'for a try'. He spent all day at the lake getting some excellent quality shots

I believe in the addage the the glass is more important than the body. ff glass is worth having on a crop - providing the extra weight is not an issue.

If I was short of money and had to downsize - the bodies would go first, leaving me with just my 40D as I know I could get decent shots with that and decent glass

 

[candyman]

L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling

if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later

the only L glass I would consider if I had APS-C and didn't plan to eventually go for fullframe would be primes, and even then only if I had money to spare, otherwise the non-L primes should be enough for most cases (24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)

if you're looking for zooms, consider:
* tokina 11-16 f/2.8
* tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
* canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

these are WAY better than L counterparts, at a fraction of the price (but they won't work on full-frame)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html

Even the 70-300L is a great lens on a 1.6

Yes, the 70-300L is very sharp on my 7D. I love that lens!

I believe in the addage the the glass is more important than the body. ff glass is worth having on a crop - providing the extra weight is not an issue.

If I was short of money and had to downsize - the bodies would go first, leaving me with just my 40D as I know I could get decent shots with that and decent glass

+1
Though for some it means it takes some time saving money and being able to buy decent glass

 

[Jamesy]

I would just buy everything that your friend is selling because those prices are absolutely unreal, buy all of them and resell them and you'll get double what you paid for them. Even if you had a Nikon I would say buy all of those. The 24-105 for $450 is ridiculous, they are $850-$950 used.

Maybe not the 10-22 for 450 (even though thats a pretty solid deal still), but the 100L Macro for $350? Are you sure it's not the non-L macro? A A 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750? That's a $2k lens and the cheapest I've EVER seen one was maybe $1100 used. I paid $1500 for mine and I paid $900 for the 100L and thought that was a great deal.

+1. None of my photography friend part with their gear to me at up to 50% of CL going rate. If the lenses are what you say for those prices, snap 'em up. BTW, does your buddy have any 5d2's kicking around for around $800?

 

[NormanBates]

So the 70-200 f/2.8II is bling on a 7D ..... I guess you are using the 55-250 then?

yes, I think exactly that
but let me elaborate: if I had a 7D and the money for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, I'd definitely sell the 7D and buy a 5D2 and a 70-200 f/4L IS instead

the only 2 situations in which, to me, it makes sense that a 7D owner would buy that $2K lens are:
* if he's sure he'll move to full frame soon, and knows the 70-200 f/4L IS will not be enough for him for some reason
* if he's a sports shooter

any other case: bling
(yes, it's a very nice lens, but it makes no sense to me)
(in any case, I must admit it's not easy finding long zooms for ef-s either: my comment is mostly directed towards normal and wide zooms)

 

[briansquibb]

the only 2 situations in which, to me, it makes sense that a 7D owner would buy that $2K lens are:
* if he's sure he'll move to full frame soon, and knows the 70-200 f/4L IS will not be enough for him for some reason
* if he's a sports shooter

any other case: bling
(yes, it's a very nice lens, but it makes no sense to me)
(in any case, I must admit it's not easy finding long zooms for ef-s either: my comment is mostly directed towards normal and wide zooms)

Aren't most of the 7D owners sports/wildlife shooters?

As I was answering your post "L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling" then I was not suggesting that the OP change a 70-200 f4 for the 70-200f/2.8II.

I was out shooting wildlife today. One had a 50D the other a 550D - both had 70-300L and both had updated from the consumer 70-300 to improve the IQ of their pictures - which it did

I have had the 24-105L on my 40D, 50D and 7D for a walkabout lens - nothing to match it in EFS

I can only think that only the EF-S 10-22 and the 17-55 get remotely close to L optical standards.

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route so it is not constructive to label their endeavours as 'bling'

 

[neuroanatomist]

L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling
if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later

Just because the sensor is smaller than FF? Shhhh...don't tell those using a 1.3x crop sensor!!

I see your point, but I disagree. I don't think wanting the best IQ is 'bling'.

 

[NormanBates]

I'm not saying APS-C users should not care for IQ
I'm saying lots of lenses designed for APS-C deliver much better IQ on APS-C than L zooms, at a fraction of the price

and yes, as I said before, I know that's not so easy on long lenses

but the 24-70L, 24-105L, 16-35L, 16-40L, etc, (some of which have been mentioned in this thread) just don't make sense to me, unless you know you're moving to full frame soon
and I'd rather move to full frame and stick to the 70-200 f/4L IS than buying the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
(as you can guess, I'm not a sports/wildlife shooter)

 

[Jim K]

Norman,

What lenses should I get to replace my 100-400 and 500 f/4 on my 7Ds? I think I could get one of the black 70-300s to replace my 70-200 f/4L IS.

BTW, I shoot birds down here in Florida.

 

[briansquibb]

I'm not saying APS-C users should not care for IQ
I'm saying lots of lenses designed for APS-C deliver much better IQ on APS-C than L zooms, at a fraction of the price

So exactly which lens are you talking about? There are only 3 good APS-C zooms?

I dont remember the 17-55 being cheap either ....

 

[Axilrod]

Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition

So you know someone that knows someone that works at Canon? Your friend could be completely full of crap (most 16 year olds are), just keep that in mind. The 100L Macro is $843 refurbished from Canon, so that would imply that your friend gets 60% off lenses, which is a pretty extreme discount. And most businesses put measures in place to avoid people abusing their employee discount, so I'd be careful with that.

When I worked at Apple you could get 25% off 1 notebook and/or 1 desktop once a year. Then you could also use a friends and family discount of 15%, 3 times per year. But the crazy part was that they could ask you to prove that you owned it if they suspected you were buying stuff to resell.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition

So you know someone that knows someone that works at Canon? Your friend could be completely full of crap (most 16 year olds are), just keep that in mind.

Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen. If it's too good to be true...

 

[Axilrod]

Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen. If it's too good to be true...

You're not cynical, you're just being logical and realistic based on previous experience. I've purchased almost all my lenses used, I know a good deal when I see one, but none of the deals I've gotten were anywhere close to this (maybe the 14L II for $1100, but that's one lens). One person having all the lenses this guy is talking about at below 1/2 price is highly unlikely.

 

[Act444]

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route

Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.

 

[Axilrod]

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route

Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.

17-55 is an L in disguise, aside from the somewhat poor weather sealing I think it's an excellent lens, wonderful IQ.

 

[briansquibb]

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route

Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.

I often have the 85 1.8 on my camera - it is an excellent lens. I also use a lot of L lens too - but I dont consider them bling either.

From last night - 1D4 + 85 1.8 - 1/320, iso 400, f/4.5, two flash off camera+pw

 

[Axilrod]

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route

Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.

I often have the 85 1.8 on my camera - it is an excellent lens. I also use a lot of L lens too - but I dont consider them bling either.

From last night - 1D4 + 85 1.8 - 1/320, iso 400, f/4.5, two flash off camera+pw

I agree, and you can find them for $300 used all the time. Aside from the bokeh, my 85L II isn't significantly sharper than the 1.8. I think the 85L is a better lens for sure, but +$1700 better is certainly up for debate.

 

[lbloom]

Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.

 

[briansquibb]

Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.

I would have thought a $300 lens was to the point - and why not a 85? He has a 7d not a landscape special, so faster and closer for sports (which the OP asked for) would be an ideal lens. ??? ??? ???

 

[lbloom]

Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.

I would have thought a $300 lens was to the point - and why not a 85? He has a 7d not a landscape special, so faster and closer for sports (which the OP asked for) would be an ideal lens. ??? ??? ???

Closer than the 24-105mm L (or the 55-250mm) that he already has? My reasoning was based on the focal lengths that his current lenses cover. I used my 85mm L on my 60D and I didn't like 135mm equivalent length for portraits - and 135mm does not seem very long for sports. He has 2 lenses that cover normal/short tele range and 24mm is not wide on a crop sensor. I think he should fill some missing numbers and try a wider lens, like the 10-22mm which his "friend" has for $450 or he can find on ebay well within his price range.

B419mac did say he mainly shoots portraits, and the 85mm f/1.8 is no slouch of a lens, but why not upgrade to the 50mm f/1.4 on a 7D? Or if he really wants to get into sports, which is ideal on a 7D, then why not get the 70-200mm L IS that his friend will sell him?

It all comes down to what you want to shoot. Wide-angle just opens up such a new world, I recommend it. Who's to say he can't use the 10-22mm to capture some massive crowd/arena shots at a sports event? I'd even use a fisheye (R.I.P. 15mm f/2.8)!