07-17-2010, 10:27 PM
I have a 7D as main camera, and my main focus was wildlife, but featuring to a lesser degree bug macro, still life, and landscapes.
What I've settled on for wildlife so far is:
EF-S 15-85: the range is more useful for wildlife than the aperture of the 17-55.
EF 100-400L: The zoom I use most... fast acting allowing you to react, but still there is a desire for more... My two lens, two body setup would be this and the 15-85.
Sigma 150mm macro, with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Very versatile while offering enough general magnification and working distance. With bug macro, you can never have too much working distance. Longer is better. However I'm wondering if I should get the Canon IS to possibly help with natural light macro.
To be added: even longer telephoto. 400 is kinda ok but not terribly long. Next on my shopping list will be a 300/2.8. Strap a teleconverter on it for even more potential.
What I've settled on for wildlife so far is:
EF-S 15-85: the range is more useful for wildlife than the aperture of the 17-55.
EF 100-400L: The zoom I use most... fast acting allowing you to react, but still there is a desire for more... My two lens, two body setup would be this and the 15-85.
Sigma 150mm macro, with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Very versatile while offering enough general magnification and working distance. With bug macro, you can never have too much working distance. Longer is better. However I'm wondering if I should get the Canon IS to possibly help with natural light macro.
To be added: even longer telephoto. 400 is kinda ok but not terribly long. Next on my shopping list will be a 300/2.8. Strap a teleconverter on it for even more potential.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.