Getting a 7D... please advise me on lens selection & where to buy.

[al dolega]

So it looks like I'm going to be selling off my D200, D70, lenses, and my HV30 setup (for sale thread coming soon), and making the 7D plunge.

The problem is, I'm not very familiar with Canon lenses, or where to get the best prices (if I buy new), so I was hoping the Canonites here could help. Right now I'm shooting with these Nikon lenses:

80-200 2.8 AF (two-touch version, love it but would like to have IS/VR)

10.5mm 2.8 fish (love this lens)

18-70 3.5-4.5 DX AF (rarely use this)

20mm 2.8 AF (not nearly sharp enough for my taste, don't use it all that much)

50mm 1.8 AF (my favorite and it's the cheapest one, haha)

Ideally I'd like to replicate this setup but with a faster mid-zoom and possibly a wide zoom as well. I would prefer to stick with all Canon glass, but it seems that on a crop sensor that's not entirely possible or realistic at the wide end of things.

Budget-wise, I'm hoping to have at least $3500-4000 from selling off the old gear. So that'll leave me with about $1900-2400 to spend on glass, after the 7D body, grip, and extra battery. Possibly more if I sell off more old stuff and my tax return is decent.

So far I know I definitely want a Canon 50mm f1.4 and a Canon 70-200 2.8 of some type- ideally the IS II but we'll see if that's feasible- that'd pretty much blow my budget by itself. Unless the third-party (Sigma?) versions of these are serious options? They never seemed like it to me but I'm kinda clueless here.

For a fisheye I was debating between the Sigma 10mm 2.8 and the Tokina 10-17. I don't really like the Tokina to be honest, it's slower, doesn't seem as sharp, and I've never liked how its distortion looks. The Sigma seems like it's pretty close to the Nikon 10.5.

The Nikon 20mm hasn't seen all that much use, so I was thinking of just forgoing getting a wide prime and using that money to get a fast mid-zoom... looks like the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 are my options from Canon, anything decent elsewhere?

Thanks for any help.

[Monday]

I've had major issues with a 28-70 mm Sigma zoom on pretty much all of my Canons. The autofocus just doesn't function properly. I've heard this from a few other people, too. Sigma hasn't the best reputation around here, really. There is a reason why they are less expensive.

There is a 50 mm 1.8 Canon lens with a plastic mount that is fairly cheap but still very good. Not as good as the 1.4 probably...

Are you're shooting anything else besides skating? If not, the IS on the 70-200mm might not be that important. Just get one without the IS. Much cheaper and pretty much has the same characteristics.

Why did you chose the 7D instead of the 5D II? I'd personally go with a full format if I'd get the chance.

[al dolega]

Yea I think I'm pretty certain that for the 50mm I'm going to go for the 1.4. I love my Nikon 1.8 and shoot with it a lot more than I thought I would, and don't see that changing much, so I think it's worth the upgrade... metal body, faster, better iris for better bokeh, and the focus ring on the Canon 1.8 is apparently pretty crappy for video work while the 1.4's is legit. Plus I've heard the Canon 1.8 is really chintzy quality-wise and I don't even want to fuck with that.

For the tele, I'm torn. I want IS but I don't think it's in the budget on the f2.8. I could do the f4 IS but since I mostly shoot at wider apertures, not having that extra stop is annoying (I had a Nikon 70-210 f4 before my 80-200 2.8 so I actually know this for sure). I guess I could just compensate by bumping ISO, as the 7D's high-ISO performance is way better than my D200 or D70, but that just seems lame. Plus the body's AF works better with a 2.8 lens. I'll probably go for the 2.8 non-IS, and just try to shoot on a tripod when I can.

I'm doing the 7D over the 5D2 mostly because of price, but also because the 7D has faster/better autofocus, faster sequential shooting, and does 720p60 video. The 5D2 is sick, no doubt, but it seems to be more of a landscape/portrait/studio body, and I need something more geared towards sports/PJ/action/etc. Crop sensors aren't ideal, sure, but I've been plenty happy with the low-DOF performance on my Nikons since I got fast lenses, and while the higher MP count on the 5D2 is cool, it's more than I want/need. All I really want on that front is to be able to cover 300dpi on a 11x17 two-page spread (based on my fantasy of maybe one day conning/tricking/paying a magazine to do such a thing, haha), which the 18MP on the 7D covers fine.

[nb]

24-70mm is a jizz worthy lens, my number 1 choice for sure. You might not want a wide prime but look into the 17-40mm too.

[fortunate few]

these are the lenses im getting when i buy my 7D

tamron 17-50mm vc
opteka fisheye
and sigma 30mm

i like the 50mm canon but the 7d has a crop sensor or some shit so you'll see less than you would with a 5d.

[Monday]

[…], and the focus ring on the Canon 1.8 is apparently pretty crappy for video work while the 1.4's is legit.

Definetely is, I didn't think about the video thing.

Everything else you mentioned makes also sense for me. I didn't know the 5D was so much more expensive. In my opinion, you shouldn't bother too much about IS. This technology might be very helpful at times, but I wouldn't count on it too much. Using a tripod at a certain shutter speed/focal lenght combination probably is much more effective than using IS witlessly and finding out your IS didn't work as expected when looking at the images later on.

I'm also not a fan of high ISOs, but that's because I'm used to work on film where high ASA/ISO rates always means a loss of quality. But from what I've heard, modern cameras are capable of shooting at higher ISOs and still manage to deliver good image quality. It probably doesn't hurt to shoot at 400 from time to time.

[al dolega]

Yea I think I'll probably go for 70-200 2.8 non-IS or maybe the old 80-200 2.8, which is apparently cheaper and not really any softer or anything. I'll move up to the 70-200 2.8 IS later I guess.

I'm also leaning towards the 17-55 2.8... the 17-40 is too slow and the 24-70 seems amazing but it leaves me hanging at the wide end.

Anyone have any experience with the Sigma 10mm 2.8?

[alanchrishughes]

i would definitely set aside some money for a glidecam or really nice tripod, filming with these things is the shakiest jiggliest thing ever

[Laugh]

You Should Get This

[ErikAllas]

Sup Al, looks like we're going to be getting similar setups. The 20D isn't cutting it anymore for me and canon's finally made a worthy upgrade from the xxD models. I haven't really looked into the video characteristics and at this point they seem like they're just going to be an additional bonus to an already great still camera.

I have both the 50 1.8, and sigma 8mm 3.5 fish that I'm bringing over to my next setup. I currently have the sigma 17-50mm F2.8 sigma that I'm selling for the 17-40 F4 L. I tend to lean towards the lighter lenses so the Canon 24-70 F2.8 was really out of the equation, super heavy lens and not wide enough to do indoor work. I've been finding that most of my shots taken with the wide angle are flash assisted shots so I really won't miss the wider aperture. The Sigma 18-50 F2.8 has too many issues with chromatic abberations when I've used it with my flashes, I'd advise staying away from that lens. Most of my mid range stuff I've shot with the cheapy 50mm. The 50 is by far the most bang for the buck prime out there, it feels like you'd find it in a kids toybox with lego's, but it takes awesome images. I've demo's both the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS, F2.8, F4, and F4L. Although I would love the have the F2.8 IS, its priced just shy of 2k, I think the F4 IS is a better value at half the price. IS spoils the shit out of you too.

Did you have to crop the corners on the Sig 10.5 fish? One of the annoying things about my 8mm 3.5, don't think that would work for video, maybe this lens would be an option if you could crop the corners? Mine takes amazing images, it ranks up there with the canon 15mm fish (doesn't work well with 1.6 crop).

[ericmilliren]

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it, definitely get it over the 1.8 because it'll last you so much longer and it really is a lot better in every way. if you get the 1.8 you'll just be wishing that you had the 1.4.

for wide I have the canon 10-22 f3.5, plenty wide enough and i've heard a lot of people claim it is the closest thing to having L glass without paying the L price. again I love this lens, its very sharp but you might miss your f2.8 that your nikon had. it retails for like $750 but i got mine used (basically new) for like $520. my friend has the 17-55 2.8 and loves it, awesome walk around lens for shooting anything -- just won't be able to shoot as wide.

the 70-200 IS II will completely blow your budget, haha. while I'm sure you'd end up with an amazing lens, you'd be just fine with the I version or even the non-IS. i just got the 70-200 L IS like 2 weeks ago, haven't gotten to use it much yet but from what I've shot so I've been very impressed.

I've avoided paying retail on basically all my gear. There is a really popular camera forum here in texas that i've gotten most of my gear second hand, all in basically new condition. also, i'm not sure if Craigslist in your city is good/reliable but it has been good here. as long as you can see the equipment in person before you buy, there is no harm in buying second hand (in my experience).

So basically my setup (7D, grip, xtra battery, said 3 lens) has ran me about $3850 -- which is about your budget. there are rumors of another canon coming out soon -- possibly the 60D, I'd imagine the specs would be pretty similar to the 7D.

good luck man.

[al dolega]

i would definitely set aside some money for a glidecam or really nice tripod, filming with these things is the shakiest jiggliest thing ever

Yea I'm doing a nice tripod right off the bat. I have a basic Bogen with a fluid head that I use for my HV30 and I have a small-ish carbon fiber Velbon with a crappy 3-way head that I use for photo... probably gonna sell off the Bogen and just buy a nice ballhead and a nice fluid head and switch between them on the carbon legs.

Did you have to crop the corners on the Sig 10.5 fish? One of the annoying things about my 8mm 3.5, don't think that would work for video, maybe this lens would be an option if you could crop the corners? Mine takes amazing images, it ranks up there with the canon 15mm fish (doesn't work well with 1.6 crop).

The Sigma 10mm covers the entire frame on a Canon crop body. The Nikon-mount version (same lens different mount) even covers the whole frame on Nikon's crop sensors, which are a hair bigger (1.5x instead of 1.6x)... which actually kinda sucks as it means it's not optimized for the Canon sensor (not quite as wide as it could be). Oh well.

I will actually eventually be getting a second fisheye for video... possibly that Vivitar/Bower/Opteka/etc 8mm 3.5. Video uses less of the sensor (16:9 instead of 2:3) so ideally for maximum width you want something that vignettes for photo but not quite for video... plus video is a lot harder on fisheyes than photo and the 3.5 is cheaper.

[al dolega]

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it, definitely get it over the 1.8 because it'll last you so much longer and it really is a lot better in every way. if you get the 1.8 you'll just be wishing that you had the 1.4.

Yea I'm set on getting the 1.4. I would consider the 1.8 if I hadn't consistently heard how crappily it's built and how poorly it handles.

for wide I have the canon 10-22 f3.5, plenty wide enough and i've heard a lot of people claim it is the closest thing to having L glass without paying the L price. again I love this lens, its very sharp but you might miss your f2.8 that your nikon had. it retails for like $750 but i got mine used (basically new) for like $520. my friend has the 17-55 2.8 and loves it, awesome walk around lens for shooting anything -- just won't be able to shoot as wide.

The thing with the 10-22 is that it isn't a fisheye, it's a UWA, which doesn't really work for skate stuff. You want the distortion a fisheye offers, not to mention that a 10mm fisheye is going to have a wider FOV than a 10mm UWA, because of the difference in projection between the two types of lenses.

the 70-200 IS II will completely blow your budget, haha. while I'm sure you'd end up with an amazing lens, you'd be just fine with the I version or even the non-IS. i just got the 70-200 L IS like 2 weeks ago, haven't gotten to use it much yet but from what I've shot so I've been very impressed.

Yea I was kinda joking about getting the IS II... $2500 yea right! I think I'm just gonna try to pick up the older 80-200 2.8... it's cheap, still just as fast, and (lamest reason ever) it's not that weird grey color, haha. IS is indeed really amazing but I don't think I'll have the $400-500 more that used 70-200 IS's seem to go for. I've gone this long without IS, I guess I'll just deal with it for awhile longer, and try to shoot on a tripod when I can.

[RollPhilly]

I have the 7d and have jumped around with lenses since september. 50mm 1.4 is the shit. I always have this mounted on the camera and absolutely love it. Cropped sensor is a little annoying, but I have just learned to work around it not being a 50mm while on this body. I have the sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye and LOVE it. It was super hard to land one used on ebay but when I did I never looked back. For a short zoom in your price range I went with the 17-40 f4. The L series 2.8 wide zooms were just way out of my budget and wanted to see how much use I will really get out of this style lens so it was a no brainer to step into the baby pool before diving into the deep end (if you can consider $600 used the baby pool haha)

I am actually having a friend come over today to test out my 7d with his 70-200 2.8 NON-IS as well as throw my lenses on his 5dmkII with the firmware update to see the differences. I have heard mixed reviews on the IS feature for video, and I intend on being tripod mounted or on the glidecam so we shall see how it plays out.

I am intrigued by the sigma 30mm but haven't had the chance to test it out. I feel like if it is close to being as sharp as my 50mm it could join the arsenal and I would sell the 17-40 to get the UWA canon you mentioned. Gaining a little bit of light on the wide end and a whole shit ton of light in that middle area (approx. 48mm on the 7d)

If you haven't been following NAB this year, the new bogen head that should be coming out in June looks promising. of course I can't find the thread with the model number in it but its supposed to be around $400 and had some nice features. I will reply when I finally find it.

If all goes well today I should have some footage to upload comparing some lenses and the 2 bodies, but I am still recovering from my ACL surgery and all of philadelphia is coming over today to act-a-fool so it may be a quick test and that's it. we shall see.

if you want to see anything specific regarding those lenses feel free to hit me up, [email protected]

[al dolega]

Thanks for the in-depth response Dustin.

The Sigma 30 f1.4, I have read bad things about over and over... focusing issues, etc. I don't want to dick around with sending shit back, warrantying stuff, etc... I think if/when I want a wide (well, normal on 1.6x) prime, I will go for the Canon 28 f1.8- almost as fast, slightly cheaper, slightly wider, no focusing issues, will transfer to full-frame if/when I make that jump.

To me, getting the 17-40 f4 for the 7D seems pretty silly when for a little more (well, like $200, haha) I can get the 17-55 f2.8 and get more range and one more stop. It would of course be nice if it had that sexy red ring on it, but almost everything I've read about it is extremely positive, and most people say it really should be labeled as an L anyways.

For a tele, I think I'm settled on the "Magic Drainpipe" 80-200 2.8, or the 70-200 2.8 non-IS if budget allows. It'll just come down to price really. The 80-200 supposedly is even a hair sharper than the 70-200, and I much prefer the black color, but it being old and Canon no longer servicing it kinda sketches me out. But on the other hand, how often do lenses break? I dunno... I'm pretty careful with my stuff, but it would really suck to drop $700 or so and then have it crap out on me. The 70-200 would still be serviceable by Canon, and assuming I get the 17-55, it would leave me with a smaller gap between focal lengths, too.

The Sigma fish, I am glad to see a recommendation on. Like I said earlier, third-party lenses sketch me out, so I was skeptical of it.

[alanchrishughes]

ive had the 50mm 1.8 for about 6 months and it has worked really well for me, it does seem really cheaply built but it is holding up fine so far.

[alanchrishughes]

...intend on being tripod mounted or on the glidecam

do glidecams help much filming telephoto shots? like just standing still and zoomed up on something. i figure if im gonna spend $100+ on a nice tripod, if a glidecam can keep things equally as steady i might shell out the extra flow and get one of them instead.

[al dolega]

Seems to me like for skating, a glidecam would be strictly for fisheye and wide-angle shots.... maybe like a 30mm if you're really good with it and there's a lot of light so you can get a deep DOF to avoid the focus being too bad. And even if it is possible to get a good shot with a tele on a glidecam, it still wouldn't replace your tripod, they're just two diferent types of shots.

[andrew nemo]

Get a steadicam and a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 wide angle. sharpest lens ever

[ADLAVINSKY]

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 wide angle. sharpest lens ever

yeah, the 11-16 at f8 and above, set to infinity, is the sharpest in its class... would be in your best interest to get some nice filters for it too, some nice B&W slim line ND's and a nice CP