Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pamunoz

Canon 7D DSLR

Recommended Posts

That's a common question on the DSLR forums. That's hard to answer because there are many lenses out there and many different prices. If you're shooting video, then my recommendation is to look at getting a zoom lens with a fixed f-stop throughout the zoom range of the lens. You want a lens that'll be able to give you a low f-stop too, otherwise you're cranking the ISO in dark environments.

 

If you're looking for a decent walk-about lens then I HIGHLY recommend the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens, it's very expensive, I know but it has a fast f-stop (2.8 through the zoom range) and it has decent zoom capability for a walk-about camera. You'll be able to easily shoot low ISO video with this lens in dark environments.

 

Another little thing, but important: it has a filter size of 77mm which is the same on the popular Canon 70-200mm IS USM lens. So if you go all the way and buy things like a variND or fader ND, it's interchangeable. So ultimately you save a little $.

 

Also, I have an 18-200mm EF-S lens which I bought because of the great zoom. It's decent for the daytime, but i can't use it at night for video and it has a 72mm filter size which means I my faderND for this won't interchange with my 70-200mm which sucks a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't seem to be very in love with the kit lenses on these, so what is the go-to everyday lens to get instead?

 

Actually, the IS flavor of the 18-55 kit lens that's being shipping with Rebels for the last couple of years got amazing scores in every review. It's night and day compared to the previous version of the same lens, and it outperforms Sigmas and Tamrons zooms costing two or three times more. I was skeptical too, but the conclusions are very consistent everywhere. The resolution is incredibly high, even at the widest apertures (which are not very wide, of course). So, the main issues with the kit lens are slow apertures, build quality, lack of a distance scale, lousy focus ring, etc. In every other aspect, it's in the tradition of the 50mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/2.8 cheap primes, in the sense of giving awesome quality in a cheap enclosure.

 

BTW, these two primes are no-brainer. The 28mm f/2.8 beats the more expensive f/1.8 version in almost everything but max aperture and focus speed. Unfortunately, they went up in price like 20-30 per cent in the last few years, not sure when. So they're now a super bargain, but not a super ultra bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that 28mm is really nice. Got the super ultra mega bargain 50mm f1.8 too, the scope of DOF on it's really nice, feels a bit plasticky that one. Stuck to primes for now and still haven't had a real chance to play around with the camera.. did shoot some pretty epic footage of walking the dog in a field haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was all about primes in the beginning. Primes allow low f'stop but no image stabilization and zoom flexibility.

 

EVEN if you use tripods, a quality lens with good IS makes the difference because with a prime every time you touch that focus ring the camera jitters a little. With primes, you're going to have to be really gentle.

 

I have many prime lenses and while they're awesome in many ways, you will find yourself wanting IS and that zoom more often than not.

 

Keep in mind that just because you've got a 1.4, a 1.8, or even a 2.8 - it doesn't mean you're going to want that extreme shallow DOF that it yields.

 

I shoot interviews at f/4.0.

 

The 24-70mm lens gives you a 50mm and a 28mm in 1 lens with lens hood, with image stabalization and it still sports great low light capability. 2.8 is still fantastic!

 

After using so many lenses, I think that the 24-70mm is quite possibly the best Canon walkabout camera lens for the 7D.

 

Oh there's also no cross-over. this lens goes up to 70mm. Then if you want the zoom you can buy the 70-200mm IS f/2.8 lens to cover your telephoto needs (both 77mm - filter size).

Edited by pamunoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick question:

 

People don't seem to be very in love with the kit lenses on these, so what is the go-to everyday lens to get instead?

I use my SLR for everything from shoots to the kids, so I need a decent workhorse lens. I've always been fine with the Rebel kit lens for that, but it doesn't hurt to ask around if there is something I'm missing.

 

-sf

 

I got myself a 28mm f1.8, pretty happy with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the IS flavor of the 18-55 kit lens that's being shipping with Rebels for the last couple of years got amazing scores in every review. It's night and day compared to the previous version of the same lens, and it outperforms Sigmas and Tamrons zooms costing two or three times more. I was skeptical too, but the conclusions are very consistent everywhere. The resolution is incredibly high, even at the widest apertures (which are not very wide, of course). So, the main issues with the kit lens are slow apertures, build quality, lack of a distance scale, lousy focus ring, etc. In every other aspect, it's in the tradition of the 50mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/2.8 cheap primes, in the sense of giving awesome quality in a cheap enclosure.

 

BTW, these two primes are no-brainer. The 28mm f/2.8 beats the more expensive f/1.8 version in almost everything but max aperture and focus speed. Unfortunately, they went up in price like 20-30 per cent in the last few years, not sure when. So they're now a super bargain, but not a super ultra bargain.

 

ah. good info.

I guess video people like Stu aren't in love with it but I AM using it as a stills camera 80% of the time. Like I said, I've always been happy with my non IS 18-55 in terms of general shooting. It isn't PRO but my kids don't look ugly when shot with it and landscapes turn out well enough.

One thing I noticed on the internet: people poo poo a lot of good/decent stuff because its easy to be a critic. Thanks again for the contrarian view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah. good info.

I guess video people like Stu aren't in love with it but I AM using it as a stills camera 80% of the time. Like I said, I've always been happy with my non IS 18-55 in terms of general shooting. It isn't PRO but my kids don't look ugly when shot with it and landscapes turn out well enough.

One thing I noticed on the internet: people poo poo a lot of good/decent stuff because its easy to be a critic. Thanks again for the contrarian view.

 

They don't like it because the previous version was much worse and because kit lenses historically have been awful. I understand that not only Canon, but also Nikon, raised the bar for kit lenses. Still, a decent zoom which will only open up to to f/5.6 in the telephoto end is not quite the sexiest lens in the world. It's just not the piece of crap everybody (myself included, until recently) think it is.

Edited by Adolfo Rozenfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 has been the alternative for the $800 Canon model because of its price/performance ratio.

 

Maybe we read different forums and reviews.

 

 

www.photozone.de:

"There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images. Anyway, the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is nothing short of amazing."

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

 

www.dpreview.com:

"Canon have indeed upped the ante with this new lens; it's much better than its predecessor, especially in terms of sharpness in the corners and at wider apertures, and with reduced chromatic aberrations to boot. Indeed overall it's an extremely well-behaved little lens, with very few nasty surprises for the user, and a remarkably good image stabilisation unit; indeed Canon's main concern may ultimately become whether users have as much incentive to upgrade to more expensive optics as they did before."

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

 

www.slrgear.com:

"The 18-55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS shows excellent sharpness at 18mm wide-open at ƒ/3.5, a focal length/aperture combination which typically shows off the weakness of most consumer-grade lenses. Image sharpness is essentially even across the frame, and doesn't exceed 2 units on our scale of 1-12. For a lens of this price point, this is amazing performance" (...) "diffraction starts to set in around ƒ/16, but you don't really start to see mediocre performance until the aperture is stopped down to rarely-used f-stop numbers such as ƒ/29. At that point, the image is quite soft, but at least the softness is uniform at between 4 and 5 units. All in all, excellent performance."

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got a sigma f/1.4 30mm that I love. Its just the right focal length and the f/1.4 is really nice to have when you're using natural light.

 

Just shot with this on a trip. I agree, it's pretty sweet. I really liked pushing overexposure with it.

 

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah. good info.

I guess video people like Stu aren't in love with it but I AM using it as a stills camera 80% of the time. Like I said, I've always been happy with my non IS 18-55 in terms of general shooting. It isn't PRO but my kids don't look ugly when shot with it and landscapes turn out well enough.

One thing I noticed on the internet: people poo poo a lot of good/decent stuff because its easy to be a critic. Thanks again for the contrarian view.

 

There is a weird brand of photography nerd that memorizes/spouts specs instead of takes pictures. They kind of remind me of sports nerds who memorize stats instead of have a beer with their friends and watch the game.

 

Of course, I'm pretty guilty of talking about mograph instead of making stuff.

 

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the hell is Nikon doing good 1080p?

 

I don't want to rebuy lenses and kits.

 

I wouldn't worry.

 

Apparently Nikon is due to release some more cameras this year which, all rumors right now... but they will give Canon some competition with this respect. I don't really follow Nikon models but a friend of mine who's a Nikon buff says to expect some big things from them this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...