[nazbrok]

Hi,



I am going to buy a canon D7 as my first APS-C (I use to own a Panasonic FZ38).

With it, I want to buy good lens to start (don't want cheap one and buy good ones in few months)



I am not familiar with the different ranges offered by manufactors and specially because I never had to think about it before (all ranges where in one lens).



To be known, in the futur, I think to add to my 7D the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM



Now I need to determine which lens to buy as my main lens. I was thinking about one of those included in the pack, the 15-85mm. Then I noticed on the reiviews the problems at high aperture. Then I started to consider the canon 17-55 f2.8 USM (more expensive but better review). Is it a good "main lens" ? Any other propositions ? (price should be < 1000€).

I feel if I take the 17-55 I will have a hole with the "futur" 70-200. is that a real problem ?





Note : I also plan to buy the canon FF 50mm 1.4 USM





I am open to any suggestion, even completly different to what I am planning to if it's a better option <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



seb.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='nazbrok' date='25 June 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1277420060' post='674']

Hi,



I am going to buy a canon D7 as my first APS-C (I use to own a Panasonic FZ38).

With it, I want to buy good lens to start (don't want cheap one and buy good ones in few months)



I am not familiar with the different ranges offered by manufactors and specially because I never had to think about it before (all ranges where in one lens).



To be known, in the futur, I think to add to my 7D the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM



Now I need to determine which lens to buy as my main lens. I was thinking about one of those included in the pack, the 15-85mm. Then I noticed on the reiviews the problems at high aperture. Then I started to consider the canon 17-55 f2.8 USM (more expensive but better review). Is it a good "main lens" ? Any other propositions ? (price should be < 1000€).

I feel if I take the 17-55 I will have a hole with the "futur" 70-200. is that a real problem ?





Note : I also plan to buy the canon FF 50mm 1.4 USM





I am open to any suggestion, even completly different to what I am planning to if it's a better option <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



seb.

[/quote]



Before I got my first DSLR, I was a megazoom fan too (Sony H9). My first lens was the 17-55 IS and it lasted the whole time I had my APS-C camera until I upgraded to FF. While the 7D is one of the best APS-C bodies, unless you're willing to carry "any" weight everywhere you go, I recommend you to get a T2i/550D instead. The 17-55's a chunky lens in comparison to the variable aperture zooms. Couple that with a 7D and you have a combo that's as big as a FF combo without the benefits of FF. So my recommendation is:



1. Go for a 550D/T2i + 17-55 IS combo - It will be much easier to carry, since you're coming from a megazoom - It'll also save your money for a FF later on.



2. Get a 5D2 + 24-105 IS which will be much better in terms of colours, IQ and will give you a bigger zoom range too (extending from the wide end as well as the tele end, it might save you the cost of getting a second or even a third lens for combo #1 above). Plus the 24-105 should be easier to sell than a 17-55 nowadays.



If you think the little bells and whistles in the bodies make a difference think again... good shots come from: 1) having the camera with you, 2) technique, 3) the lenses and 4) the sensors. Slight differences in the final AF performance, orientation sensors, etc. don't have a real say in the final images.



Plus, I don't think you'll stick to a 7D forever. If you're not going for the best of the best, then don't go for some expensive thing in between. It's like whether you get a plain Lancer or a much more expensive Evo, you're still a Mitsubishi driver <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Also remember how much experience you have on the subject (DSLRs) at this stage, to make such long term decisions too.



Feel free to ask more questions <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[popo]

On choosing any camera, also get your hands on them to see if you like the feel. The handling of the body of 50D, 7D and 5D are all pretty similar. I owned the 50D and 7D at the same time, and the practical differences between them are much smaller than you think. So possibly consider the 50D too currently at about half the cost of the 7D.



Assuming you go for the 7D (or any crop sensor camera), I personally did go for the 15-85 kit for the great zoom range and image quality. The 17-55 f/2.8 was also a consideration, but for my needs the range was more important than aperture, where I use primes if I really do want big aperture. You might also consider 17-40L or 24-105L if you want weather sealing to match the 7D, but the former is rather short zoom range and no IS, the latter lacks wide angle so you might want a separate lens for that. If you go 17-55 + 70-200, personally I wouldn't worry about the "hole" in the rage.



I'll in part disagree with GTW above. Yes, the photographer is very important in the output, but only if the kit isn't the limiting factor. For less demanding types of photography, anything could do, even a camera phone. More features only become significant as you push to the limit. The 5D and 7D have different strengths and weaknesses, and as such are better or worse at some applications than others. For example, I tried using a 5D for wildlife, and I got decent shots out of it. But it was harder than with 50D or 7D and I didn't enjoy it as much. Personally, I feel the only unique benefit you get from FF over crop sensor is the potential to achieve shallower DoF more easily, with a side helping of a small noise improvement and more detail.



@GTW I have a 7D and drive a plain Lancer <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[nazbrok]

Thanks for your answers.



If I stick to the 17-55, is it still usefull to get also the FF 50mm for the portrait ? since the 50 is in the 17-50 range .. maybe just to get a better aperture (or 2.8 is good enought) ?

[toni-a]

Well as you know your gear depends on your needs and shooting habits, do you shoot landscape or people ??

if you are mainly a landscape shooter, 7D doeesn't make much sense.

however if you are into sports, or photojournalism, wildlife or even portraiture and you need a performant autfocus, then 7D is the camera body you need.

As for the lenses I won 17-55 IS and I can assure you very few lenses can get to its performance, razor sharp at all apertures, wondeful colors, very fast and acurate autofocus, very well buit, its only weak points are the bokeh and slight vignetting at 17mf2.8 but nothing to worry in field conditions, go for it, you won't regret.



I also do own the 50mm f1.4 and since i got the 17-55 I use it very rarely, it has less contrast and a better bokeh you might prefer its skin tones, but I don't think it is worth being a companion for the 17-55, in low light 17-55 IS is so good, it is much better than the prime.



Canon 70-200f2.8 is THE lens for portraits, if you are getting it, then forget about the rest, unless you are ready to pay huge amounts of money and get 85f1.2L or TSE 90mm f2.8 or 135mm f2.0 L

[tale]

I propose a very different purchasing decision: Get a used 5D Mark I and a 50mm f1.4 (or a 7D and a ~30mm) and use that for half a year/a year. Then add other lenses as you see fit (a wide angle, a tele, a macro...). This will be very limiting at first, but you will be rewarded with some respectable photographs after a very short time. This is how one learned photography for the last decades (and how I learned it) - it still works today.



Just my 2 cents ;-)

[Brightcolours]

First of all, the Canon EOS 7D is a very nice DSLR. Of course, the lighter and more compact Canon EOS 550D is also very nice. It depends on your personal wishes and requirements if the 7D is the APS-C Canon to choose. (personally I like the small size and weight of my 450D)



Then about lenses. Why do you want a 50mm f1.4? Of course, nothing wrong with that, but I am not sure if you know your way around APS-C focal lengths yet. A 50mm f1.4 will mainly be for portrait shots. A "normal" focal length would be around 28-35mm. So if you want a prime for general usage, a 35mm lens makes a bit more sense.

The choice is then quite big still:

Sigma 28mm f1.8 full frame

Sigma 30mm f1.4 APS-C

Canon 28mm f1.8

Canon 35mm f2

Canon 35mm f1.4



About standard zooms:

The obvious (main) differences between the 15-85 and 17-55 are:

The 15-85 has a bigger focal length range.

The 17-55 has a big advantage aperture wise, especially in the long end where it counts most.



What has your preference only you can answer. My preference would be with the wider aperture.



Of course, there are other options too. For wider aperture, I am quite impressed by the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro, actually a very nice lens. Better than the Tamron counterpart, even though the photozone tests might make you think different.

This then would be a budget alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS, without IS though.

The new Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM looks to be very promising too, but will give a smaller advantage money wise.



Since you plan an EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM II in future, I would not worry all that much about the 55-85 range the 15-85 offers over others. What I do want to warn about it WEIGHT (and to lesser extent, bulk). You come from a small super zoom, a 7F already weighs a lot more. A 70-200 f2.8 adds 1.5 kilos to that. It might be wise to try out first if that is really what you want to use. The also wonderful Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM is half the weight and half the price. I certainly prefer the f4 version, because of the weight.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='popo' date='25 June 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1277450571' post='680']

For example, I tried using a 5D for wildlife, and I got decent shots out of it. But it was harder than with 50D or 7D and I didn't enjoy it as much.

[/quote]



I shoot birds with the 5DII AI Serveo all the time and get super sharp shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3904062188 (full 21MP file)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3903290645 (full 21MP file)



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



And this was manual focused with a 400 2.8 VR Nikon wide open on the 5D2:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3852064595 (full 21MP file)



These are from a 600mm manual focus lens on the 5D2:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewri...real600mf/ (more birds lol)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4428389667/ (water skiing)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4427818563/ (water skiing)



Don't forget to look at all of them in the large sizes <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='popo' date='25 June 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1277450571' post='680']

Personally, I feel the only unique benefit you get from FF over crop sensor is the potential to achieve shallower DoF more easily, with a side helping of a small noise improvement and more detail.

[/quote]



Isn't it interesting how those are some of the main reasons why people upgrade from P&S/compacts to DSLRs? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='popo' date='25 June 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1277450571' post='680']@GTW I have a 7D and drive a plain Lancer <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



Well I put the money of a Lancer in to my gear and now I take the bus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='25 June 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1277471804' post='691']

I shoot birds with the 5DII AI Serveo all the time and get super sharp shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3904062188 (full 21MP file)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3903290645 (full 21MP file)



[/quote]





Just a small addition to what you're written: I was taught photography by a local man when I was kid, and I got started with a Russian 'Cosmic 35', fixed lens job. The books he gave me featured the most amazing photos I'd seen, shot largely by people using Leicas and Hasselblads, fixed lenses, no auto-focus etc.



If you know how to do it, you can shoot most subjects with most DSLR cameras/lenses these days, so I would disagree that this camera is better for X, and that lens is better for Y - it's more about how you use it.

[wim]

[quote name='Pinhole' date='25 June 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1277481380' post='695']

Just a small addition to what you're written: I was taught photography by a local man when I was kid, and I got started with a Russian 'Cosmic 35', fixed lens job. The books he gave me featured the most amazing photos I'd seen, shot largely by people using Leicas and Hasselblads, fixed lenses, no auto-focus etc.



If you know how to do it, you can shoot most subjects with most DSLR cameras/lenses these days, so I would disagree that this camera is better for X, and that lens is better for Y - it's more about how you use it.

[/quote]

I do not agree entirely: yes, you can do almost anything with any camera, if you know how to use it, but some cameras (and lenses) make it easier for you to shoot specific subjects, especially if they are designed to do so. We wouldn't have had different type of camera and different formats of film and ancillary equipment in the analog days either if that wasn't the case.



Of course, you can MF any subject, but it is a lot easier to have a helping hand from Ai Servo AF with a bunch of AF and AF assist points than just trying to MF a waterskier traveling at 40 mph or more and moving in all directions when you know he is going to jump somewhere between here and 100 m further down the track, and trying to catch that jump... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Hey, it is bad enough with Ai Servo and a fast AF lens.



I did manage with my 5D II at dusk, but oh boy, was that hard <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim