# Greenie photographer : Making the switch to DSLR



## Werz (Oct 25, 2014)

Hello!

Well, so far I've only used point-and-shoot cameras in my life. I'm at a point where I want to make the jump to DSLR and really get serious about photography (still a hobby though), so I'm currently trying to decide what I'd need to buy. I'm also reading tons of materials on photography, watching videos, anything I can absorb to learn more. I also love to read tons of reviews but right now I think I've read so much I'm just completely confused. Hopefully you guys can help me a bit 

What I enjoy to photograph, in order (unfortunately, everything) :
- Wildlife
- Landscape
- Macro
- Portraits

The body is set in stone, I'm really going for the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (getting the body only though, no kit lens).

As for each category, some I know what to get and some I'm not sure anymore.

- Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)
- Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated
- Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)
- Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated

I am hoping to combine the Landscape and Portraits into one lens, if possible (but a quality one). That would help keep the cost down and also to not switch lens too often. Would be great on trips to just carry one lens while walking. I do take a lot more landscape photos than portrait though. I would prefer (and feel safer) if that lens had image stabilization. I'd say my budget for that combined lens would be 1500$ or lower (lower would be nice of course!).

Some lens I've looked into so far :
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM (could come with the body as a very nice rebate)
- Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM
- Canon EF 35MM F1.4L USM
- Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM LENS
etc.

Please keep in mind that this is a crop body so I need something that will still be able to get some beautiful large landscapes, if possible!

Thank you for any help


----------



## LJ3Jim (Oct 25, 2014)

The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.

I don't think of "portrait" and "landscape" as being the same lens. For me, landscape would be something like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 or the EF 16-35 F/4 IS. For portraits, the 100 macro can do an excellent job. If it's too long, the 85 is a great lens.

FYI, the EF-S 18-135 STM kit lens is very good. It doesn't cost much when in the kit, and it might be just the ticket for your "walk around" lens.


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 25, 2014)

Did you see the thread that predicts a new version of the 100-400 coming in a month or two? The existing 100-400 is a very nice lens (part of my kit) but the new version will (probably) have better glass and better image stabilization -- the older version has about two stops IS, the newer versions of other Canon lenses have four stops in the IS -- so, my bet is new will have four stops also. 

I've heard good and bad reviews about the 24-70 ... nice lens tho', although I've never shot with it -- I was planning on testing / buying it with the 7D2 (coming) and then really put my 24-105 through the hoops last weekend with that in mind - and it performs very well, and so decided to keep it and skip the 24-70 .... so, you might want to take a look at the 24-105 too. Lots of conflicted stories about 24-105, but at least the one I own gives me great shots -- I use it on a 5DM3 but also on the 7D as well, and have no issues with it on either camera. I expect it will perform equally well or even better on the 7D2 ...


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 25, 2014)

I would suggest the 17-55 2.8 it is a great lens for crop. 24-xx lens aren't wide enough for me on a crop as a walk around kind of lens. And the new ef-s 10-18 I don't think it is a great lens but a nice lens to have in your bag when you need wide. 
I do agree it is nice to have the 18-135 for when you just want to walk around.


----------



## Werz (Oct 25, 2014)

LJ3Jim said:


> The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.
> 
> I don't think of "portrait" and "landscape" as being the same lens. For me, landscape would be something like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 or the EF 16-35 F/4 IS. For portraits, the 100 macro can do an excellent job. If it's too long, the 85 is a great lens.
> 
> FYI, the EF-S 18-135 STM kit lens is very good. It doesn't cost much when in the kit, and it might be just the ticket for your "walk around" lens.



Thank you for the response 

It's good to know the 18-135 is actually very good, I will definitely look into it. That would indeed be a good walk around lens that would cover most of my needs when I want to travel light.

I'm guessing if I buy the 18-135 then I wouldn't really need the 17-55 (unless I'm mistaken).


----------



## Werz (Oct 25, 2014)

monkey44 said:


> Did you see the thread that predicts a new version of the 100-400 coming in a month or two? The existing 100-400 is a very nice lens (part of my kit) but the new version will (probably) have better glass and better image stabilization -- the older version has about two stops IS, the newer versions of other Canon lenses have four stops in the IS -- so, my bet is new will have four stops also.
> 
> I've heard good and bad reviews about the 24-70 ... nice lens tho', although I've never shot with it -- I was planning on testing / buying it with the 7D2 (coming) and then really put my 24-105 through the hoops last weekend with that in mind - and it performs very well, and so decided to keep it and skip the 24-70 .... so, you might want to take a look at the 24-105 too. Lots of conflicted stories about 24-105, but at least the one I own gives me great shots -- I use it on a 5DM3 but also on the 7D as well, and have no issues with it on either camera. I expect it will perform equally well or even better on the 7D2 ...



Yes I saw the news for the 100-400mm, which is really exciting (although the forum replies brought me back to earth, most people seem to think it's another pipe dream rumour) if true and if the price stays around the same.


----------



## zim (Oct 25, 2014)

The new 100-400 ain't gonna come cheap!
You may want to consider the efs pancake as a body cap and great little street walkabout to save a little initially

Edit: I don't mean as a replacement for the 100-400 obviously! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## LJ3Jim (Oct 26, 2014)

Werz said:


> LJ3Jim said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2, 100-400, and 100 macro are excellent choices. I would wait a bit on the 100-400 just to see if Canon does release a new one.
> ...



The 17-55 is an excellent lens; the 18-135 is a very good lens. I do use the 18-135 on my 70D for landscapes. Here's a sample:

http://www.lj3.com/misc/AlmostSummer.jpg

In all honesty, I would start with the 18-135 kit lens and the 100-400L. After you see what you like and don't like, you'll be able to modify your lens collection as needed. You can actually do some nice macro work with both of these lenses (down to something that's about 3" across). Closer than that, you'll need the 60 or 100 macro. Those will get down to something about 1" wide.

I don't personally do much with portraits. I take kids pictures, birthday parties, etc, with the 18-135. But for a true portrait lens, you need F/2.8 or less to get good background blur.


----------



## Davebo (Oct 26, 2014)

The 17-55 f2.8 will produce better IQ than the 24-70 f4 on a crop camera. 24-70 is also an 'odd' range for a crop too. More importantly, there is definitely some controversy about the 24-70 f4. If you like to read reviews,you owe it to yourself to learn more about this lens.....it has some issues. I,too,had considered buying it with the 7D Mk II pre order deal,but having second thoughts. I was intending to use it on a FF,but there are reports of vignetting @ 24mm and softness, particularly around 50mm. This lens was nearly $1,500 when released....price has since dropped to about $1,000...now Canon Canada is selling for $400, if you pre order/purchase a 7D Mk II......plus my local camera store says they've never sold one! Doesn't sound like a winner to me...but someone may have been lucky to get a good copy.


----------



## Werz (Oct 26, 2014)

LJ3Jim said:


> The 17-55 is an excellent lens; the 18-135 is a very good lens. I do use the 18-135 on my 70D for landscapes. Here's a sample:
> 
> http://www.lj3.com/misc/AlmostSummer.jpg
> 
> ...



Thank you LJ3Jim, this is quite helpful


----------



## KacperP (Oct 26, 2014)

For being "lighter" on landscapes you might consider recent EF-S 10-18 IS STM instead of EF-S 10-22 USM.
Newer, cheaper, sharper, stabilised and... slower and "just a plastic mount". But I guess for landscapes f4.5-5.6 is ok. 

If you get any urge to get wide prime (like Canon 35mm you mentioned) - reconsider.
For crop sensor I suggest Sigma A 18-35/f1.8 instead - sensational zoom that gives crops new meaning.
Also a great portrait and evening/nightime lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as a landscape and walkaround lens. Another option would be the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, either will give you L-series optical quality in a more useful focal range for APS-C (24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide angle; personally I prefer a faster aperture, especially on APS-C). 

For portraits, the EF 85mm f/1.8 – IMO, it has about the best IQ per dollar value in the Canon lineup. I liked mine so well I replaced it with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and liked that so much that after adding a FF camera to my kit, I bought the EF 135mm f/2L (which is the FF equivalent of 85/1.2 on crop).

Also, if you'll shoot indoor portraits be sure to add an external flash, 430EX II or better so you have sufficient power and can tilt/rotate the head to bounce the flash off a ceiling or wall.


----------



## Werz (Oct 26, 2014)

Thank you for all the replies/tips so far, much appreciated!


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 26, 2014)

Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.

Jim


----------



## Werz (Oct 26, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.
> 
> Jim



I was thinking about renting but it's rather pricy  For a weekend for a body and 1-2 lens it would cost me over 200$... yikes.


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 26, 2014)

Take a look at the Canon Loyalty programs -- for savings -- or Refurbished at Canon, Adorama, B&H too -- some good savings there, and the Refurbished come with full one year warranty - just like new warranty. I've only bought one Refurb (a 7D), but it looked brand new when it arrived. Could not tell it wasn't new, and when Canon repaired it - came here with a shutter count of "FOUR" ... not a mark on it. Complete package, battery, charger, wires, etc ...


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 26, 2014)

Werz said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Consider renting before buying; get one or two for a weekend and see what fits you. There are lots of options to match whatever you want to invest. I'd also recommend Lightroom, it's worth it.
> ...



I didn't mean to suggest renting a body  Is there a camera club in your area? You might be able to find a copy of a lens you like to try that way.

For glass I'd look at a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but not the VC (stabilized) one; I have one and as much as the zoom ring turns the wrong way and the AF is noisy the optics are awfully good for a fast zoom for that kind of money. That and a zoom telephoto (55-250 maybe?) should be enough to give you an idea of what you want if you want to invest in great lenses after, and they can usually be bought, used and resold at no more than a small loss.

Whatever you settle on, have fun with it and let us know how it goes for you.

Jim


----------



## Werz (Oct 26, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> I didn't mean to suggest renting a body  Is there a camera club in your area? You might be able to find a copy of a lens you like to try that way.
> 
> For glass I'd look at a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but not the VC (stabilized) one; I have one and as much as the zoom ring turns the wrong way and the AF is noisy the optics are awfully good for a fast zoom for that kind of money. That and a zoom telephoto (55-250 maybe?) should be enough to give you an idea of what you want if you want to invest in great lenses after, and they can usually be bought, used and resold at no more than a small loss.
> 
> ...



Ahh, that makes more sense  I'm not sure about a camera club, would need to look.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, can't wait to actually buy all that equipment and start using it


----------



## PCM-madison (Oct 26, 2014)

For wildlife, I think the 7D Mark ii is a great choice. I have one on pre-order. Because you express an interest in other types of photography (landscape, macro, portraits), you should seriously consider full frame options. Earlier this year, I took a trip to Glacier National Park and brought my 6D and 60D along with several lenses. I took equivalent landscape and other non-focal-length-limited photos with both cameras, and the 6D was clearly superior to the 60D. I expect the 7D mark ii will excel at wildlife and sports, but I plan to keep my 6D for other types of photography. It is unlikely that the 7D mark ii will exceed full frame canon cameras outside of the wildlife/sports categories. Regarding lenses, I own the 10-22mm EFS, and I think it is a great landscape lens for crop cameras. I agree with other comments that 24mm on crop is not wide enough for many common landscape situations. For telephoto options, I own the 100-400mm L IS and have taken many great photos with it. My main reservations with this lens relate to size/weight and consistency of focus. I also own the 70-300mm L IS lens. It is lighter, more compact, has better IS, and more consistent/accurate focus than my 100-400mm L IS lens. When choosing a telephoto lens for my trip to Glacier, I went with the 70-300mm L IS. That being said, I am reluctant to sell my 100-400mm L IS because I also get great photos with it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 26, 2014)

Werz said:


> Hello!
> 
> Well, so far I've only used point-and-shoot cameras in my life. I'm at a point where I want to make the jump to DSLR and really get serious about photography (still a hobby though), so I'm currently trying to decide what I'd need to buy. I'm also reading tons of materials on photography, watching videos, anything I can absorb to learn more. I also love to read tons of reviews but right now I think I've read so much I'm just completely confused. Hopefully you guys can help me a bit
> 
> ...



Here are some choices I would consider for landscape/standard zoom (in order of priority):

1. 17-55 f/2.8 IS: provides a longer range, so you can use it for portraits on crop, has IS, about $ 800, very sharp and an excellent lens to boot 
2. 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS: much longer range and therefore very versatile, has IS, about $ 600, as sharp as the 17-55.
3. 16-35 f/4 L IS: good focal length on crops for landscape, has IS, about 1.2K, tack sharp acc. to reviews
[I would advice against the 16-35 f/2.8 as it provides narrower range, no IS, and is not very sharp wide open according to most users. I haven't used it, and it is probably a great lens on FF- but provides NO advantage over the 17-55 on crop sensors, especially since you are probably not switching to FF right after buying a brand new lens. The 24-70 is not a good range on crop if you shoot landscapes more and don't KNOW yet if you will be satisfied being limited to a 35mm FF equivalent. The 35/1.4 is a great lens on FF and a fantastic street/low light full body portrait lens on crop. It is a great lens if you are okay with a limited focal length, but probably not the ideal first lens to buy]

Options 1 and 2 will let you avoid getting a portrait lens for a while. Both lenses are very usable wide open, and 50-55mm is a great range for portrait on APS-C. On the other hand, 3 and 4 are far better lenses for landscape and generally newer, sharper lenses, but will require you get a separate portrait lens. 

I didn't mention the 18-135 because the 15-85 is a far better choice IMO- the difference between 15mm and 18mm is significant on the wide end, but on the tele end 85mm-135mm might not be that beneficial, especially if you have a dedicated tele lens. Plus the IQ and build quality is significantly better on the 15-85 wrt the 18-135. And I feel STM is too slow and noisy compared to USM, but that might just be me (it's okay on the pancakes, tho').

Here are some portrait choices:
1. As Neuro mentioned: 85/1.8 if you prefer headshots
2. 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 if you prefer more half-body traditional portraits: DO NOT get the 50/1.4 if you are getting the 17-55. The 50/1.4 isn't that sharp wider than f/2.8 and the 17-55 is better wide open than the 50mm at the same aperture. You can, however, get the 50/1.8 as it will serve as a low-light lens in a pinch and has a really low price. In fact, I almost always recommend the 50/1.8 as the first prime as the images wide open will feel like magic (yeah, the 50/1.4 is slightly better but not worth the extra price IMO given its performance below f/2.8 ).

By the way, the 18-55mm is a perfectly capable lens for all the purposes. So you might just want to use it for a year or so until you know what you want and then make a more informed purchase.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Oct 26, 2014)

Many right suggestions here.

Just my 2 Ct´s: Start slowly !

You´ve read a lot, watched Video´s - good Idea - you learned a lot.

I would start ( if the 7DII your Choice - think it´s matching for you ! ) with:

Body in Kit with 18-135
+ EF-S 11-18 ( cheap and for it´s Price nice for real wide )
+ an Fast ( Apperture ) Lens for Portrait / Low Light -> EF 85 1.8 and/or EF 50 1.8
+ an External Flash - i would recommend an 600-EX-RT instead an 430

i would also wait for the new 100-400 - go out and take Photo´s with the new 7DII first, you will
be flashed by the Capabilitys first ;D .

If you need an longer Telefoto soon - try the newest EF-S 55-250 - it´s also good and not to pricey.

Ultrawide L Lenses are really heavy - and not that wide on Crop.
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an nearly perfekt Lens if you need an fast Standard Zoom.

EF 24-70 f4 L IS -> not an Lens i would consider .

Buy a "Startset" and use it - then you will feel what you will need added !

Greetings Bernd


----------



## tayassu (Oct 26, 2014)

Hello Werz!  

A few suggestions:

The 7DII will fit just right for your type of photography; I believe this will be a stunning body! 

As a Macro lens, the 100L is great, but if you want to save money, go for the Tamron 90/2.8 VC Macro. I have that lens and have compared it to the 100L when I bought it and there is no visible difference! The only thing the Canon is better at is image Stabilisation in macro situations, but I consider that negligible when shooting macro, because I work with a tripod. For portraits, the VC of the Tamron is perfectly fine! 

Whatever macro lens you will choose, you can use it as a portrait lens also, I do the same.

For wildlife, I would not buy the 100-400. It is an old design and you need good luck to get a satisfying copy. Either go for the 70-300L, or, if that is too short, for the new Sigma 150-600 Sports. The former would have the advantage of being extremely compact, while the latter goes to 600mm. The Sigma would probably require a tripod, though.

For landscapes, I would recommend two lenses, a UWA and a standard zoom (that you can use for everyday shooting). For the UWA, I'd recommend you to get the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (great lens, stunning optics, but noisy AF and not really flare resistant) or, depending on your standard zoom choice, the Tokina 12-28/4 (same as the 11-16). I have the Tokina 12-24/4 II, the predecessor of the latter and it is really good and a good bang for the buck too!
For standard lenses, you can use a EF-S zoom, but I didn't like my 15-85 and the 17-55 is probably a bit too less tele. Also, they are both not weathersealed, which I consider very important. Therefore, I would go for a FF standard zoom. I'd recommend for not having to switch often the Canon 24-105/4 or for better IQ and faster aperture (for street shooting, casual portraits) the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. That latter lens is absolutely stunning, although it might require some AF Microadjustment. For having the WA covered, you'd then have to go for the 12-28. 

So, in summary, I'd recommend the Tokina 12-28/4, the Tamron 24-70/2.8, the Tamron 90/2.8 VC and the Sigma 150-600 S.

Now, some other suggestions:

You will need a flash sometimes. Go for the Canon 600EX-RT.

A tripod is an absolute must for landscapers and macroers. I'd recommend the Manfrotto MT055CXPRO4, it is very sturdy and relatively compact, I have got its predecessor. For heads, I'd go for a good ballhead like the Novoflex CB3 or CB5 or the UniqBall.

Get many spare batteries.

Get good, fast cards, I recommend the SanDisk 160Mb/s CF's and the SanDisk 95MB/s SDHC's.

Last, get Lightroom and shoot RAW! It makes a truckload of a difference about being able to control the light. 

Happy buying and shooting!


----------



## e17paul (Oct 26, 2014)

I was in a similar position when I recently returned to SLR photography having used compact and phone cameras since the film days. I would recommend buying just the basics at first and then finding out what you feel the need for beyond its limitations. I started with a 'zoom with my feet 50/1.8 and then started building a range of lenses from there. My lens choices changed once I started to go out and use my initial set up. 

As suggested by others, the 18-135 kit sounds like a good plan. If/when the rumoured 100-400 replacement is announced, I may begin to have mixed feelings about my 70-300L. I'm with you on the 100L, it's top of my wish list to give both macro and a faster aperture at short telephoto.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 26, 2014)

If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first. You can either dive head first or break up the problem. 

I suggest buying or borrowing a lower end Canon camera. Such as a SL1. Learn the ins and outs of M/Tv/AV modes. You can read and watch all the videos in the world and that is no substitute for doing.

In 4-6 months buy the 7D II. When you buy the 7D II you will not have to learn the manual modes so you can focus on learning how to make the most of the auto focus system and other features.

This should give you the following benefits:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 7D II should be cheaper by then
[*]You will have a better understanding of what you want.
[*]Better understanding of manual camera modes and a better appreciation of the 7D II auto focus system
[*]If you bough a cheep Rebel, 60D, or SL1 you can keep it as a backup
[*]If you find you do not like photography as much as you though you would are not out much money.
[/list]

You have to keep in mind that a 7D II is around the same price as a Canon 6D. If you are more serious about general photography I would get a 6D first. 

As for lenses if Crop was my primary camera I would go for the following
[list type=decimal]
[*]A wide angle zoom (Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is likely the best
[*]sigma 18-35 f1.8
[*]Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC
[*] A decent 70-X00 zoom (70-300L IS,70-200f4L IS, 70-200f2.8 L)
[*]100L 
[*]100-400L
[*]Some other primes.
[/list]

I found that for starting at 24mm is not really an issue for outdoor photography if you have a ultra wide lens. I suggest the Tamron because Canon does not have IS on there 24-70mm and it is needed on a crop camera. The 18-35 is reported to be a fantastic lens and can fill the gap between the 24-70 and a ultra wide. I also found that I use between 18-35 the most in indoor photography and at 1.8 it can stand in for the prime lens in that range. 

A 70-200 or 70-300 on crop is a good starting point for a wildlife lens. But if you need the range of the 100-400L then buy it. Who knows when a new one will be released.


----------



## wyldeguy (Oct 26, 2014)

Since you say wildlife as your highest priority I would say the Tamron 150-600mm. I know the Sigma is more prominent right now because it just came out but I have the Tamron and it's fantastic. Plus it's not as heavy (by about 2 pounds) as the Sigma sport which is helpful for long days. I have found the Tamron to be very sharp despite that a lot of people are saying that it's soft at 600. And the color rendition and image stabilization are awesome. I am very pleased with it and it's on my camera non-stop.

The 24-70 f4 IS might make a good one lens for portrait and landscape but I would recommend the 16-35f4 IS for the landscape and the 24-70f2.8 for the portrait. Now for the portrait I would also recommend the Sigma over the canon since it's half the price and about 150grams lighter. I have the Sigma and I love it. If you really wanted to go crazy you could get an 85mm prime for the portrait but I would like to point out that the 100L macro is also one of the sharpest lenses canon makes and is an excellent portrait lens if you have the option to stand back further.


----------



## Steve (Oct 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first.



This is a good post.

OP, you should really consider maybe getting a lower end used camera and lens to learn on before you go dropping $5-6k on gear you don't know how to use. You'd probably be much better off with a used 50D, a tamron 17-50 2.8 and a basic photography class at a community college. Once you've spent some time learning and shooting, you'll start to find what it is you really like to shoot and you can build your kit around what you actually need rather than all of the possibilities under the sun. 

And dont listen to people around here - they're all a bunch of gear fiends that will insist you can't take a decent picture with anything less than a 1DX and 600 f4 IS II


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 26, 2014)

Any particular reason you are not considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8? If I were breaking in - I would certainly look at this lens - the reports of IQ of pretty darn high. 

Sets up an interesting set of lens options. 18-35, 50, 70-200, 150-600. 

I am very happy w/ my Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses. Very happy not to be completely limited to the Canon brand. I have 16-35, 40 pancake, 50 art (no focusing issues), 70-200 II, 150-600 for the FF. I do have the 17-55 which is a great lens but would have looked hard at the Sigma 18-35 if it was available when I got the 17-55.


----------



## Werz (Oct 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first.
> ...



Personally I've never found that to be true, in everything I've done/bought in life. If you're gonna do something, go for it. Buying 2-3 upgrades for me is really not a good solution, hence why I mentioned it in the original post. If I'm gonna learn, might as well learn with the right gear.

Thank you for your input though


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2014)

Werz said:


> Personally I've never found that to be true, in everything I've done/bought in life. If you're gonna do something, go for it. Buying 2-3 upgrades for me is really not a good solution, hence why I mentioned it in the original post.



For bodies, I went T1i/500D → 7D → 5DII + 7D → 1D X. In three years. You can sell the one(s) you upgrade from, but you'll always lose money, sometimes a lot. 

One piece of advice above did jump out, though. For everything but wildlife, the 6D would be a better choice. For everything _including_ wildlife, the 5DIII would generally be better. I liked my 7D, but after getting the 5DII the 7D was relegated to birds/wildlife only. FF gives you sharper images, less noise (particularly for high ISO shooting – that can be low light, or needing a fast shutter speed in moderate light), shallower DoF for portraits, etc.


----------



## BJK (Oct 27, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> If you have never shot a SLR or at least taken picture in manual mode be prepared for a steep learning curb. I feel that it is best to set a baseline of expectation. The 7D II is a great camera but it may be more than you can handle at first. You can either dive head first or break up the problem.
> 
> I suggest buying or borrowing a lower end Canon camera. Such as a SL1. Learn the ins and outs of M/Tv/AV modes. You can read and watch all the videos in the world and that is no substitute for doing.
> 
> In 4-6 months buy the 7D II. When you buy the 7D II you will not have to learn the manual modes so you can focus on learning how to make the most of the auto focus system and other features.



Counterpoint: what about the 70D? It still has most of the user-friendly modes from the intro Rebels, but a similar sensor to the 7D2. This way, the new photographer can decide whether the extra $800-1,000 (assuming a small price drop in the next 6 months) could be better spent on glass vs. the features of the 7D2.

I say that as someone who's learned his T3i for the past 2 years, and is trying to decide if I need to spend that extra money for the 7D2; the 6D is in the picture as well, but I like shooting sports....but I think I need the crop sensor's reach to shoot games from the cheap seats.

EDIT: gratuitous plug to my last Flickr bleachers shoot.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Werz said:


> As for each category, some I know what to get and some I'm not sure anymore.
> 
> - Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)
> - Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated
> ...


The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead. 
Canon EF-S 10-22MM 3.5-4.5 USM is an excellent lens but I would also look at the new 10-18mm for half of the price.
Canon EF 16-35MM F2.8 L II USM doesn't have IS and isn't very good in sharpness at the borders wide open. I would suggest the 16-35mm f4L IS instead.
For the 35mm focal lenght, I would drop the canon 35L and take the 35mm f2 IS, it's cheaper, sharper and lighter.


----------



## Werz (Oct 27, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
> For Macro, the best way to go is the 100mm f2L IS, that will also serve as good headshots portrait lens.
> Wildlife lens, this is a good aspect to consider since strong rumors indicate the current 100-400mm lens is going to be replaced soon. As well, there are two Sigma lenses already anounced and coming to stores soon that covers longer focal lenght (150-600mm) so, I would suggest to wait a little bit.
> Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM will not give you a wide angle coverage in APS-C sensor so, I would take the 17-55mm instead.
> ...



The problem I'm having is for each review/comment of a lens that says "this is the best/buy this lens" I also see one that says "don't buy this lens". It's very frustrating 

oops I did mean the 16-35 F4, just wrote the wrong one there. I'm torn between the 16-35 and the 17-55 right now. I like the 16-35 since it's a L series that should be more "protected" since I do a lot of hiking and travelling in all kind of places + winter shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong on the lens protection.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 27, 2014)

If 17mm-18mm'ish on the wide end for APS-C is wide enough for you, then I say Sigma 18-35 1.8. I suspect that you are wanting much wider than the 35mm equivalent of 28.8mm though. So I would suggest the new 10-18 IS. I don't think you're going to be able to beat it for $299. If you have the money, get both.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 27, 2014)

Werz said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > The only best landscape and portrait for APS-C sensors is the all-aroud 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. It covers the wide angle (17mm-21mm with 27mm-35mm equivalent) and small part of the portrait focal lenght (50-55mm with 80-88mm equivalent).
> ...




I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway). 
The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
2. Less than half the price
3. Fully usable (sharpness, vignetting, etc.) wide open and quite acceptable corners
4. Much lighter and slightly smaller
5. The 35-55mm focal range, which makes it a very good portrait lens (and the bokeh is quite nice)


----------



## Werz (Oct 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
> The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
> 1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
> 2. Less than half the price
> ...



Hmm I'm checking the prices (canadian site) and without rebates :
CANON EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM LENS : 1319.99
CANON EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS USM LENS : 1050.04

You mentioned less than half the price? Am I checking the wrong lens?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 28, 2014)

Werz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
> ...




Yes, I was comparing between the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (CAD 900 at Henry's, see below) and the 16-35mm f/2.8 II (CAD 1700, okay the former is cheaper in the US). I did not consider the f/4 IS lens here because I was comparing the f/2.8 lenses.
The f/4 lens is a stop slower than the 17-55, so what you gain in terms of IS over the f/2.8L you lose in terms of aperture. 
Here are the disadvantages of an f/4 lens:
1. Less light (you are light-limited on crop anyway, due to smaller sensor size)
2. Less shallow depth of field (you said you want to use it for portraits)
3. You cannot use the high precision f/2.8 AF sensors

http://www.henrys.com/23935-CANON-EF-S-17-55MM-F2-8-IS-USM-LENS.aspx
http://www.henrys.com/368-CANON-EF-16-35MM-F2-8-L-II-USM-LENS.aspx


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 28, 2014)

Hi Werz,

I use to photograph the same things than you.



Werz said:


> - Wildlife (and some sports) : Going for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (decided)



That is a great choice! For wildlife the absolutely minimum is 200mm. If low light is not the first issue you experience, this lens is the good choice. Don't forget to buy a fast memory card to capture action during fast bursts.



Werz said:


> - Landscape : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated



I own the EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5. I have been able to do great shots with it. It is not that expensive and quite small/light. I carry it all the time in my bag (or on my camera ;D). Coupled with a pol. filter and a ND8 filter. I should invest in a ND400 in the next months.
Also have a look at 16-35mm f/4L IS.



Werz said:


> - Macro : Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM (decided, might buy a bit later though)



Best lens for that. It has a great fast AF and amazing IS. I am able to shoot at 1/15 with it without any motion blur in the resulting picture! A must have.



Werz said:


> - Portraits : I don't know anymore.. any help appreciated



The Canon EF 100MM F2.8 L Macro IS USM is also a great portrait lens. I have done a lot of nice tight portraits with it. The 2.8 aperture is enough to get nice bokehs and this lens is just sharper than any other lens I own! As I said it is a must have ;D

An other choice for portrait could be:
*EF 50mm f/1.8. Really inexpensive with horrible AF noise but what a great lens!
*EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Really expensive and heavy but just amazing. The best general purpose telezoom also. I use it for wildlife/Portrait/Landscape !
*EF 85mm f/1.8 I am wondering to invest in it for Christmas


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2014)

i like fast glass so on the 7D2 I would go

new canon 10-18 EF-S for landscapes
sigma 18-35 f1.8 for most general stuff
sigma 50mm f1.4 Art Portraits
Canon 70-200 f2.8L II long stuff

and done till you want to go longer than 200....


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 30, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i like fast glass so on the 7D2 I would go
> 
> new canon 10-18 EF-S for landscapes
> sigma 18-35 f1.8 for most general stuff
> ...



+1. For budget but excellent macro lens, the 100mm F2.8 USM non-L is certainly a very good alternative to the L version.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 30, 2014)

Werz said:


> I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
> The 16-35 is weather sealed, of course, but if you are careful enough then I would weigh that sole advantage over the several that the 17-55 offers:
> 1. Two to three stops of image stabilization.
> 2. Less than half the price
> ...


Werz,
If you take the 16-35mm f4L IS you'll be happy. It's a fantastic lens, fast AF, sharp, great contrast and IQ. The 16-35mm give you 4-stop IS (almost) so you can shoot almost anything static without needing a tripod and get sharp images (varies from one to another).


----------



## lintoni (Oct 30, 2014)

Tripod!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 30, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Werz said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 17-55 IS. I have used it in dusty (Antelope canyon) and rainy (Oregon) conditions without any problem. I always kept a filter on, and zoomed slowly if I was worried about dust. I never had any dust inside my lens (not that it affects IQ anyway).
> ...



With due respect, while fantastic for a full frame (on my list for next year), the 16-35/4 is an inferior choice in OP's specific case. All the advantages I mentioned for an f/2.8 lens WITH IS are valid, plus the OP wants to use it for portraits occasionally. 
Of course, some times we just lust for L ;D


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 30, 2014)

I've worked on my kit for quite a while, and though not as impressive as other people's kits, it does the job very nicely and appears to be similar to what you are looking for.

Here's what I have:
T1i - first camera that I learned a lot on
60D - recent second camera - bought refurbished for $460 from canon. I'm still not sure if I like it or not, was wanting increased frame rate, but it's still a tad slow for me. It also seems to produce dark images if I follow what the meter is telling me. I'm exposing to the right now to produce normal looking pictures.

General - 17-55 F2.8 - this lens is the second most used out of my kit. It produces great images every time. No issues with dust.
Wildlife/sports - Telephoto - 70-200 F2.8L Mk II - this lens is the most used out of my kit. It produces great images every time, pricey, but worth it.
Macro/Portrait - 60 2.8 - I've had a great experience with this lens, but if I were to do it over, I would have saved and gotten the 100 F2.8L - mainly for the working distance and IS. I will replace this one.
Wide-Angle - 10-22 - this is another lens that does a great job. I don't have experience with the new 10-18, but the 10-22 won't disappoint.
Portrait - 50 1.8, 85 1.8 - they both do a great job, though I've found the 85 to be a bit softer on my 60D. Don't be discouraged on the 50's plasticy feel. If you are kind to your equipment it will produce nice images for little money.
Wildlife - Teleconverter - 1.4 Mk III - I use this with my 70-200 for wildlife. It will turn this lens into a ~157-448mm FF equivalent F4 IS lens. The image quality doesn't suffer from what I can tell and focus speed is still quick.

Good luck on your kit building!


----------



## Werz (Nov 25, 2014)

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks to everyone who posted here.

Here is what I bought/ordered :
- Canon 7D Mark II (bought)
- Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II (ordered, shipping mid-to-late december)
- Canon 16-35mm f4L IS USM (ordered, should receive it next week)
- Canon 100mm f2.8 L Macro IS USM EF (bought)

So far, very happy with the 7DII


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 25, 2014)

You'll be very happy with that kit. The 100L macro makes a very good portrait lens. It's a little long but it'll work. Maybe consider a 50mm prime whether sigma or canon 1.4 or 1.8 so you have a fast prime that's a little shorter and I think you'll be set. Congrats on the new setup and enjoy!


----------



## zim (Dec 31, 2014)

That's a rather good kit I'm jealous that's pretty much where I'm trying to get to!
Have to agree a fast prime around 35 - 50 would be what I'd go for next (and last for quite a long time)

Congrats and have fun!


----------



## Act444 (Dec 31, 2014)

Werz said:


> Sorry for the late reply. Thanks to everyone who posted here.
> 
> Here is what I bought/ordered :
> - Canon 7D Mark II (bought)
> ...



Nice, enjoy!

When I first started (early 2010), I was leaning towards the 7D...then the T2i came out (the first rebel with 18MP), so I decided to grab that and put the money saved towards a better lens. But since I was just starting, I decided to just get the T2i with the stock 18-55mm lens, use that to get comfortable with the camera and THEN upgrade to a better lens afterward once I knew exactly what I wanted. As I found out, I'm very glad I went that direction because the learning curve was rather steep...

Didn't take long for me to realize that I needed better glass pronto if I truly wanted to unleash the potential of my new DSLR. When it was time to upgrade, I ended up with the 24-105 f/4L IS (outdoor/general shooting) and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (indoor/low light shooting). 

I still have the 24-105 (different copy though), but the Tamron eventually got sold for Canon's 17-55 (the Tamron was a good lens for the price but focus issues and softness at 2.8 prompted an upgrade when I could afford it). Then, the move up to FF forced me to give up the 17-55 which I traded in for a 24-70 II. I've since made the decision to utilize both FF and APS-C, but the 55-250 is the only EF-S lens I currently have. Pretty good one too, sharpness holds up with the L telephotos (but color rendition and AF lag behind).


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as a landscape and walkaround lens. Another option would be the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, either will give you L-series optical quality in a more useful focal range for APS-C (24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide angle; personally I prefer a faster aperture, especially on APS-C).
> 
> For portraits, the EF 85mm f/1.8 – IMO, it has about the best IQ per dollar value in the Canon lineup. I liked mine so well I replaced it with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and liked that so much that after adding a FF camera to my kit, I bought the EF 135mm f/2L (which is the FF equivalent of 85/1.2 on crop).
> 
> Also, if you'll shoot indoor portraits be sure to add an external flash, 430EX II or better so you have sufficient power and can tilt/rotate the head to bounce the flash off a ceiling or wall.



+1

Before going FF, the 17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f2.8L II IS were my staples for crop -- the short zoom on a 60D and the long zoom on the 7D. I would strongly recommend the 17-55 as your "normal" lens and starter lens. 

The 24-xxx lenses are great on FF, but have a more limited range on crop. In many cases, they either aren't quite wide enough or they aren't quite long enough. You may find yourself changing lenses more often.

Keep in mind that small DOF is harder to achieve with crop bodies. You need faster lenses and/or longer lenses for subject isolation. If portraiture is a big interest, you may either want longer lenses at 2.8 (the 70-200 works well here) or faster "short" teles, like the 85 f1.8 or 100 f2.0 -- both good lenses and both relatively cheap.

Another lens to consider as a "normal" prime is the 35 f2.0 IS. I've kept my 60D and 7D and like this lens with these bodies. It's very good in low light with the added benefit of IS and slow shutter speeds.

It's easy and tempting to enumerate the lenses that "you need to get", but the best advice I was given was to wait until you have an identified need before investing in new gear. Don't upgrade unless your current gear is holding you back. With this in mind, pick one lens to start with (and I would recommend the 17-55). But, don't assemble your "kit" with a single purchase. Build it over time. You will likely find that your actual usage will vary widely from your anticipated need. 

Good luck and have fun with the 7D2!!


----------

