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]

"You can see the brush strokes."

Hardly proof. Both the Sigma and Tamron can do that.  The worth of the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II is well beyond that.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"You can see the brush strokes."

Hardly proof. Both the Sigma and Tamron can do that.  The worth of the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II is well beyond that.

---

Maybe.  But, I'm not so sure if they could capture that much detail and contrast on the same gray, overcast day, though.  The Siggy and Tammy need some light in order to really shine. 

All I know for sure is that 70-200 sure outperformed my 24-105 when it came to capturing color and contrast that day.  The 24-105 shots seemed dull by comparison.

[ebiggs1]

"But, I'm not so sure if they could capture that much detail and contrast on the same gray, overcast day,"

Believe me they can.  The Tamron is so very close to the Canon it is scary.  It is a 'best buy' considering the cost vs performance.  Just don't try to kid yourself both of those entries are very good.  This comes form owning all of them and using all of them...........a lot.  IMHO, the Tamron is better than the Nikkor which more than doubles its price!

"I know for sure is that 70-200 sure outperformed my 24-105"

Of this there is no doubt.  But the ef 24-105mm f4L is not a stellar performer in the least.  It is the 'best buy' in a Canon L lens though but not even close to the best IQ.

After thought, I actually prefer the Tamron on my D3 and D3x over the Nikkor.  I rarely use the Nikkor.  It is not a true 200mm lens ending somewhere near 180mm.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"But, I'm not so sure if they could capture that much detail and contrast on the same gray, overcast day,"

Believe me they can.  The Tamron is so very close to the Canon it is scary.  It is a 'best buy' considering the cost vs performance.  Just don't try to kid yourself both of those entries are very good.  This comes form owning all of them and using all of them...........a lot.  IMHO, the Tamron is better than the Nikkor which more than doubles its price!

---

Tamron lenses continue to have problems with hunting in low light. What good is having a constant aperture f/2.8 lens when it constantly hunts in low light.  Yes, Tamron has great image quality, but, no thank you.

[ebiggs1]

"Tamron lenses continue to have problems with hunting in low light."

You have never used one!  Have you?  Have you ever even handled one? Mine doesn't have any such issues.

You should really have some hands on experience before you make such claims.

There is no way I would give up my Canon ef 70-200mm f2.8L II but I can afford it.  If I couldn't, I would have no hesitation of using the Tamron exclusively.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Tamron lenses continue to have problems with hunting in low light."

You have never used one!  Have you?  

---

Yes, I have, and I stand by my statement that their focus performance isn't anywhere near that of their Canon counter parts.

[ebiggs1]

"... their focus performance isn't anywhere near that of their Canon counter parts."

That's not what you said first. I agree with that statement.  But I would hope so for nearly a thousand bucks more.

It is more better to use the gear yourself instead of just read inter web reviews.  Picking up a lens and shooting a few shots is not nearly "using" a lens.

The bottom line is both the Tamron and the Sigma are extremely viable alternatives to the Canon for folks that don't have $2000 to spend on a lens.  The Tamron is the better of the two, however.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... their focus performance isn't anywhere near that of their Canon counter parts."

The bottom line is both the Tamron and the Sigma are extremely viable alternatives to the Canon for folks that don't have $2000 to spend on a lens.  The Tamron is the better of the two, however.

---

I have used both the Tamron and Sigma versions of the lens. And I still own a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM. I would pick the Sigma over the Tamron any day because the focus performance of the Tamron is low light (where you need an f/2.8 lens) is crap. If you still own your Tamron go out and test it in low light conditions, your opinion of the lens may change. I had a good opnion of the lens until I tried using in lighting conditions where you really needed and f/2.8 lens (i.e. 1/500, f/2.8, ISO 3200+) in those conditions it just constantly hunted back and forth. Both the Canon and the Sigma perform fine in those conditions.

[ebiggs1]

There is something wrong with yours.  Not a good reason to claim it is common to the line.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

There is something wrong with yours.  Not a good reason to claim it is common to the line.

---

One only has to Google 'Tamron focus problem Canon' to know that yours is the outlier, not mine.