Need help choosing lenses for 7D Mark II

[ilzho]

Hello:

I am purchasing a 7D Mark II and am looking for advice on some lens.

I primarily take pictures of horses/wildlife/action sports.

I want to have a good lens for portraits and a good one for wildlife/sports.

I don't want to have 5 different lenses either (at least for now).

I realize it really depends on how much money I want to spend.

I would like to get 2 lenses for around $2K.

Some of you have already given some great advice on lenses.

EF 50MM F/1.8

EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS USM

EF 24-105MM F/4 L IS USM

EF-S 18-135 MM IS

EF 70-200MM F/4 L IS USM

EF 70-200MM F/2.8 L II IS

Just a little confused and need a little clarity.

Thank you,

David

[ebiggs1]

"...  ebiggs are not really a sports/BIF type are you?"

And you would be correct, sir.  About me anyway but the big guy from Boston may differ.

"...use the 600mm f/4L with a 1.4x and it's still too short..."

Wow, bud, you are talking some very serious focal length here!    Over 1300mm equivalent if my pea brain is working today.

[ebiggs1]

"...  they are difficult for beginners to use handheld."

We were all beginners at some point as you have certainly proved.  I am sure with some practice even the OP can learn.

[ilzho]

I apprecaite everyones advice and responses. 

It's a fun hobby to say the least.

I learn more and more everyday by reading, watching and doing.

Horse racing is my first passion, but nature and sports are up there as well.

I can only get to the track on the weekends weather permiting.

I'm working on my manual mode and single AF points, etc.. trial by error to say the least.

I'm learning the functions, slowly....

This cardinal stopped by this afternoon.

It's not great but it's a start.

It's hard to snap photos of birds as they hear the door open and fly away.....

Thanks as always......

ISO 200, f 2.8, 1/500 through a 100mm lens. It was a jpeg, not a raw image.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

---

That would be a fine pair on a 6D or other full-frame camera. On a 7D Mark II, not so much. You're missing too much range at the wide end, and the telephoto is longer than you probably need (and can reasonably control) on a crop-frame camera.

---

I guess you and ebiggs are not really a sports/BIF type are you? :).  400mm for me is way too short on my 7DII.  I usually use the 600mm f/4L with a 1.4x and it's still too short (I don't do sports, just BIF).  Regarding the wide end, the OP just wanted portrait and sports/wildlife - 24mm is plenty good for that even on a cropped sensor.

---

I don't think the 24-105 is wide enough, either.  I would have suggested the same EF-S standard zoom lens, but suggested the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM because it would work on a full frame body, too, should the OP decide to upgrade at some future date.  The lenses will likely outlast the camera. 

As for the super telephoto end, 400mm and up, they are difficult for beginners to use handheld.  They're even hard to use on a tripod, or a monopod.  My thoughts are running more towards general purpose than a specific purpose, like Birds In Flight.

---

I agree with all of Waddizzle's comments. I have the 16-35 f/4 L and like it a lot (although I believe I've used it only on a FF camera). I don't use mine all that much; but when I need it, I really need it - like for photographing our City Hall from the roof of the Senior Center across the street. It's a very sharp lens and exhibits surprisingly little WA distortion.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I don't think the 24-105 is wide enough, either.  I would have suggested the same EF-S standard zoom lens, but suggested the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM because it would work on a full frame body, too, should the OP decide to upgrade at some future date.  The lenses will likely outlast the camera. 

As for the super telephoto end, 400mm and up, they are difficult for beginners to use handheld.  They're even hard to use on a tripod, or a monopod.  My thoughts are running more towards general purpose than a specific purpose, like Birds In Flight.

---

I agree with all of Waddizzle's comments. I have the 16-35 f/4 L and like it a lot (although I believe I've used it only on a FF camera). I don't use mine all that much; but when I need it, I really need it - like for photographing our City Hall from the roof of the Senior Center across the street. It's a very sharp lens and exhibits surprisingly little WA distortion.

---

There are a couple of problems with using full frame wide angle lenses on a crop camera. First being you are paying a lot of money for optics that are literately out of the picture. Second they tend to be heavier and larger than their counter parts designed for a crop sensor.

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be a much better choice for a crop sensor camera than the EF 16-35 f/4L. But for your desired usage I wouldn't get either. Both are spending a lot of money, where it doesn't contribute significantly to your goals. 

[ilzho]

I plan on getting these:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Should I consider the Tamron or the Sigma since they are cheaper?

[Waddizzle]

"There are a couple of problems with using full frame wide angle lenses on a crop camera. First being you are paying a lot of money for optics that are literately out of the picture. Second they tend to be heavier and larger than their counter parts designed for a crop sensor." 

True, you'll get no argument from me. 

However, using a full frame wide angle lens like that on a crop sensor frequently means the images have negligible amounts of barrel distortion.  You get nice, rectilinear shots.  The shots I get with my Rokinon 14mm on my T5 are really nice and rectilinear, without any keystoning on the edges, which I can get sometimes with the 16-35mm f/2.8.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ilzho wrote:

I plan on getting these:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Should I consider the Tamron or the Sigma since they are cheaper?

---

Great choices.  Cheaper?  As in cheaper than the Canon 100-400?  I like the IQ on the Canon 100-400 better than my Sigma 150-600.  The Sigma is also a significantly larger lens, than the Canon.  The Canon is easier to pack into a backpack. 

[TTMartin]

---

@ilzho wrote:

I plan on getting these:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Should I consider the Tamron or the Sigma since they are cheaper?

---

You could consider the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, I have one and it is every bit as good as the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

As for the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, stick with Canon, nobody makes as good of a lens.

[ebiggs1]

"I plan on getting these:"    Don't let anybody talk you out of this choice. Always stick with Canon when possible.  And there is no good reason not to in this case.

"EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM"        Great choices!  

"Should I consider the Tamron or the Sigma since they are cheaper?"    They are cheaper for a reason.  Plus they are not 'real' Canon lenses.  They are reverse engineered to work on a Canon camera.  Canon does not release data on how their lenses work.  The third party companies guess on how they do it.  Most of current lenses work well, however.

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is one of the best lenses I have ever owned or used.  And I have owned a boat load of lenses over the years!  It and the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II are two of the best lenses made in the world.  There aren't any better. PERIOD.