lens for 7d mk11

[greyhorse]

I just purchased the 7dmk11 and looking for ideas for what lens to get along with the kid lens.

I shoot mostly family events landscrape skyscrape grandsons sporting events and horse racing.

Doesn't have to be canon lens. Thanks

[cicopo]

You'll most likely need 2 lenses to cover most of that PLUS the kit lens. You'll need an ultra wide such as the Canon 10-22 or 24 whichever it is or something similar (Never used the Canon but it is very good) plus something in the 70-200 or 70-300 range. What is your budget & is really low light going to be a common part of the sports type events?

[greyhorse]

Well to start budget around $2,000.00

 And there will be some low light.

Also forgot to say there will be some wildlife and nature.

[RexGig]

Nikon will introduce the D7 in about twelve years, so unless you are a time traveler, I presume you are referring to the Canon 7D, and specifically the Mark II, a.k.a. Mark Two. 

I am not sure what you mean by "kid" lens. You may have meant "kit" lens, but as I am unfamiliar with the kit lens available with some 7D Mark II cameras, will not consider it here. If you like the lens packed with your new camera, you may well wish to disregard much of what I say here. 

You have specified a very wide range of shooting, that could easily justify the outlay of many thousands of dollars. The 7D Mark II is a very capable sports/action/bird/wildlife camera, that "deserves" really good lenses. At the ultra-wide end, a need implied by the landscape-skyscraper part, the two Canon-made choices are the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 10-18mm. If you have a kit lens starting at 18mm, the latter might well be the better choice. My personal choice is the EF-S 10-22mm, as I find its full zoom range useful, and when I bought it, the 10-18mm did not yet exist, anyway.

Because my widest lens can zoom to 22mm, it made sense for my next zoom lens to be the quite versatile EF 24-105mm f/4L. 24mm is not very wide, on a camera with an APS-C sensor, but a zoom lens that starts in the "normal" focal length range, and zooms to about 80mm or 100mm, and can focus at a very close distance, is very useful for my on-duty crime scene images, and I had noticed that many nature photographers use it, and one noted food photographer likes it, so I acquired a pre-owned EF 24-105mm L last year, and it has not disappointed.

I could shoot just about everything I "needed" to shoot, with my EF-S 10-22mm and EF 24-105mm lenses, which fit within your $2000 limit. (In actual practice, macro is very important to me, and I do use a macro lens often, but you did not mention a need for macro.)  I cannot address horse-racing, which is probably best shot with lenses that far exceed your stated budget. Sports, in low light, is not a modest-budget proposition! Low-light sports lenses start with the 70-200mm f/2.8 options, with the better of Canon's two choices costing more than $2000 US.

To be clear, I am sharing information on the lenses I use, not attempting to provide conclusive advice. This is a way, not the way.

[ebiggs1]

You did not mention what lens you got with it.

From what you said, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens along with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens would be a killer outfit.  It "alomst" meets your two grand limit.

If you got a lens that is close to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, just add the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens.

[greyhorse]

Sorry about the type error. Yes I was asking about the 7d mk11. The kit lens was the 18-135m.m. Also is it better to have a battery grip or not have one?

Thanks

[cicopo]

I'm sure there are differing opinions on the battery grip but in my view it's most important function (which isn't one I use) is the fact it includes a shutter button that's a lot more comfortable to use in Portrait Mode. My 1 series bodies have that too but I rarely shoot in Portrait Mode. Some may suggest one for more battery power while others may suggest the extra weight makes it easier to hold the camera / lens steady.

[ebiggs1]

"Also is it better to have a battery grip or not have one?"

I greatly like the addition of a battery grip. I consider it a necessary option.  One feature not already mentioned is how it makes the camera feel in your hand.

Plus if you get some bigger lenses as in a big tele the balance will be better.

[RexGig]

I derive little benefit from a battery grip, because my thin hand and fingers all fit comfortably onto the body, as-is, and my left eye is dominant, so when I shoot in "portrait" orientation, I rotate the camera opposite from most shooters, placing the grip's shutter release in a useless position. This leaves battery options as the sole benefit of a battery grip, for me. Of course, the needs of others will vary. Do what benefits you.

I do have a battery grip for the original 5D, which I have probably tested, for proper function, but never used after that. I have battery grips for the Nikon F6 and D700, which are useful, enabling me to use the huge, efficient EN-EL4a battery, made for the D2/D3-series cameras. Notably, the D700's MB-D10 grip, unlike most battery grips, is a well-made, with a wonderful build quality, and, at least for me, enhances the camera's overall handling, unlike most battery grips I have handled. Handling qualities are a personal thing, as indicated previously.

[ebiggs1]

"... unlike most battery grips, is a well-made, with a wonderful build quality, ..."

  Are you saying the Canon grips are not well made?  If so I totally 100% disagree with that one.  If you were refering to third party grips, yes, we both 100% agree,  They are mostly junk and should be avoided.