# What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)



## B419mac (Jan 20, 2012)

I recently got a canon 7d from a friend of mine with a canon 28-135mm lens. I loved this lens but I sold it on eBay for $250. With that money and a little extra I bought the 24-105 from him for $450. My question is, what lens should I get next. I have a 50 1.8 and a cheap 55-250 (which I plan to sell) but I want another nice L lens in my collection. My price limit is right around $750 so I can't go to high. My friend has a 70-200 2.8 is i that he will sell me for $750, is that a good deal because I have been looking around and heard it can have a soft focus. He also has a 100mm macro L lens for $350 and the 10-22 for $450. There are so many lenses out there and so many I want but what one should I get right now??? You can also recommend lenses that are not on this list too. Any insight would help. Thanks!


----------



## treyconnally (Jan 20, 2012)

7D. Looks like you're wanting something on the longer end of the spectrum that is fast...

I say this...

Save just a little more, just $200. That way you'd have $950. I would make a B-Line straight to Amazon, and pick up the 135mm f2. We just bought it at work and use it on a T2i and let me tell you....

THAT THING IS INSANELY SHARP!​
I hate to be the guy that says, "Save just a bit more money." But I can assure you, that you will love this lens and will love it even more as you upgrade to a Full Frame camera.

Best Wishes! Keep us posted on what you end up going with!


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 20, 2012)

I think it would depend on what you like to shoot. Can you give any insight?


----------



## moreorless (Jan 20, 2012)

Even if its an old mark 1 version a Canon 70-200 2.8 for $750 is definately a good deal if its in good condiction although it does of course depend on what you want to shoot. That lens would be well suited for sports of larger wildlife on a 7D for example but if you wanted something wider than your 24-105 for landscapes then I'd personally spend it on a Canon EF-S 10-22mm.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 20, 2012)

24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.

Your choices for wides depend on how much you have to spend:

$250 - Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 DG EX IF
$400 - Samyang 14mm (MF)
$671 - EF 17-40 F4 L refurbed from Canon
$900 - EF-S 10-22mm

If you want something on the long end in roughly that price range, the 70-200mm F4 L IS is a great and very sharp lens. You could get a used one for your budget.

Hope this helps.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

If you are looking for something longer then either:

200 f/2.8 or

300 f/4.0


----------



## branden (Jan 21, 2012)

If your friend is selling the Canon 10-22 to you for $450, you'd be crazy to not go for that option.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

I would just buy everything that your friend is selling because those prices are absolutely unreal, buy all of them and resell them and you'll get double what you paid for them. Even if you had a Nikon I would say buy all of those. The 24-105 for $450 is ridiculous, they are $850-$950 used.

Maybe not the 10-22 for 450 (even though thats a pretty solid deal still), but the 100L Macro for $350? Are you sure it's not the non-L macro? A A 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750? That's a $2k lens and the cheapest I've EVER seen one was maybe $1100 used. I paid $1500 for mine and I paid $900 for the 100L and thought that was a great deal.

As for the 70-200 having "soft focus," I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the 70-200 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses I've ever used, so if you heard it's not sharp you heard wrong.

Something just doesn't sound right, your friend has literally the best deal I have ever seen on every single one of those lenses.....They are all like 1/2 the normal used price.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> 24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.
> 
> Your choices for wides depend on how much you have to spend:
> 
> ...



Did you read what he said? He can get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, the 100L macro for $350, and the 10-22 for $450. And he supposedly already got the 24-105 for $450. 

The only way I could see any of those prices being realistic is:
1) They are stolen 
2) Your friend is rich and/or a complete fool that doesn't care about money
3) You meant the 70-200 f/4 non-IS instead of 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the non-L 100 macro instead of the 100L macro.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 21, 2012)

B419mac said:


> I recently got a canon 7d from a friend of mine with a canon 28-135mm lens. I loved this lens but I sold it on eBay for $250. With that money and a little extra I bought the 24-105 from him for $450. My question is, what lens should I get next. I have a 50 1.8 and a cheap 55-250 (which I plan to sell) but I want another nice L lens in my collection. My price limit is right around $750 so I can't go to high. My friend has a 70-200 2.8 is i that he will sell me for $750, is that a good deal because I have been looking around and heard it can have a soft focus. He also has a 100mm macro L lens for $350 and the 10-22 for $450. There are so many lenses out there and so many I want but what one should I get right now??? You can also recommend lenses that are not on this list too. Any insight would help. Thanks!



They all sound like great prices, I think a lot of people here would like to buy from your friend 

I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.


----------



## katwil (Jan 21, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.
> ...



Add:
4) They are damaged


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

willrobb said:


> They all sound like great prices, I think a lot of people here would like to buy from your friend
> 
> I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.



He said 70-200 f/2.8 IS, $750 is way more than decent for a lens with an MSRP of $1999


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 21, 2012)

willrobb said:


> I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.



The reviews on the mk1 70-200 f/2.8 IS all say the IQ is worse than the non IS - can you still buy the mk 1 in the US?


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 21, 2012)

You may want to consider a 70-200 F4L IS.

It is very versatile, it is pretty light and small compared to the 2.8, and gives awesome shots-razor sharp, great color and contrast. Great on a crop camera.

sek



briansquibb said:


> willrobb said:
> 
> 
> > I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.
> ...


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> willrobb said:
> 
> 
> > I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.
> ...



The OP said his friend would sell him a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, Willrobb misread it and thought he was talking about the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8, or he saw the price and assumed it had to be.


----------



## dunkers (Jan 21, 2012)

There's no way these prices are realistic without a catch. Those prices are too good to be true.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 21, 2012)

Are you a collector of equipment at 16? Consider becoming a photographer instead. We too love to acquire that new piece of gear but it's with some purpose in mind. I really want to shoot semi-pro soccer and think I need a...

Remember, even Canon does not know what L means. Don't limit your picture taking while you agonize over gear.


----------



## B419mac (Jan 21, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.
> ...



Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition


----------



## B419mac (Jan 21, 2012)

Thanks for the suggestions! Sorry, I forgot to mention that mainly shoot portraits, and some sports from my school. About the 70-200, I was looking at comparison shots of the v1 and v2 and the v1 seems a little softer but from what I'm hearing it seems like the 70-200 is the best way to go right now because of my shooting style. Please keep the suggestions coming. Thanks!


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 21, 2012)

Not to sidetrack the forum, but is there anything wrong with the lenses you are being sold? The prices you listed are below even what broken units sell for on sites such as craiglist. Before purchasing, make sure you test out the lens first. And if they *are* in a condition you are comfortable with, congrats on the INCREDIBLE deal!


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 21, 2012)

L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling

if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later

the only L glass I would consider if I had APS-C and didn't plan to eventually go for fullframe would be primes, and even then only if I had money to spare, otherwise the non-L primes should be enough for most cases (24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)

if you're looking for zooms, consider:
* tokina 11-16 f/2.8
* tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
* canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

these are WAY better than L counterparts, at a fraction of the price (but they won't work on full-frame)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=400&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 21, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling
> 
> if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later
> 
> ...



So the 70-200 f/2.8II is bling on a 7D ..... I guess you are using the 55-250 then?

Even the 70-300L is a great lens on a 1.6

I regularly lend my L lens to 1.6 user - including the 400 f/2.8 to a 1000D owner 'for a try'. He spent all day at the lake getting some excellent quality shots

I believe in the addage the the glass is more important than the body. ff glass is worth having on a crop - providing the extra weight is not an issue.

If I was short of money and had to downsize - the bodies would go first, leaving me with just my 40D as I know I could get decent shots with that and decent glass


----------



## candyman (Jan 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling
> ...



Yes, the 70-300L is very sharp on my 7D. I love that lens!



> I believe in the addage the the glass is more important than the body. ff glass is worth having on a crop - providing the extra weight is not an issue.
> 
> If I was short of money and had to downsize - the bodies would go first, leaving me with just my 40D as I know I could get decent shots with that and decent glass



+1
Though for some it means it takes some time saving money and being able to buy decent glass


----------



## Jamesy (Jan 21, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I would just buy everything that your friend is selling because those prices are absolutely unreal, buy all of them and resell them and you'll get double what you paid for them. Even if you had a Nikon I would say buy all of those. The 24-105 for $450 is ridiculous, they are $850-$950 used.
> 
> Maybe not the 10-22 for 450 (even though thats a pretty solid deal still), but the 100L Macro for $350? Are you sure it's not the non-L macro? A A 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750? That's a $2k lens and the cheapest I've EVER seen one was maybe $1100 used. I paid $1500 for mine and I paid $900 for the 100L and thought that was a great deal.



+1. None of my photography friend part with their gear to me at up to 50% of CL going rate. If the lenses are what you say for those prices, snap 'em up. BTW, does your buddy have any 5d2's kicking around for around $800?


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So the 70-200 f/2.8II is bling on a 7D ..... I guess you are using the 55-250 then?



yes, I think exactly that
but let me elaborate: if I had a 7D and the money for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, I'd definitely sell the 7D and buy a 5D2 and a 70-200 f/4L IS instead

the only 2 situations in which, to me, it makes sense that a 7D owner would buy that $2K lens are:
* if he's sure he'll move to full frame soon, and knows the 70-200 f/4L IS will not be enough for him for some reason
* if he's a sports shooter

any other case: bling
(yes, it's a very nice lens, but it makes no sense to me)
(in any case, I must admit it's not easy finding long zooms for ef-s either: my comment is mostly directed towards normal and wide zooms)


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 21, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> the only 2 situations in which, to me, it makes sense that a 7D owner would buy that $2K lens are:
> * if he's sure he'll move to full frame soon, and knows the 70-200 f/4L IS will not be enough for him for some reason
> * if he's a sports shooter
> 
> ...



Aren't most of the 7D owners sports/wildlife shooters?

As I was answering your post "L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling" then I was not suggesting that the OP change a 70-200 f4 for the 70-200f/2.8II.

I was out shooting wildlife today. One had a 50D the other a 550D - both had 70-300L and both had updated from the consumer 70-300 to improve the IQ of their pictures - which it did

I have had the 24-105L on my 40D, 50D and 7D for a walkabout lens - nothing to match it in EFS

I can only think that only the EF-S 10-22 and the 17-55 get remotely close to L optical standards.

I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route so it is not constructive to label their endeavours as 'bling'


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> L zooms for an APS-C camera is just bling
> if you're buying them, make sure it is because you plan to upgrade to full frame later



Just because the sensor is smaller than FF? Shhhh...don't tell those using a 1.3x crop sensor!!

I see your point, but I disagree. I don't think wanting the best IQ is 'bling'.


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 21, 2012)

I'm not saying APS-C users should not care for IQ
I'm saying lots of lenses designed for APS-C deliver much better IQ on APS-C than L zooms, at a fraction of the price

and yes, as I said before, I know that's not so easy on long lenses

but the 24-70L, 24-105L, 16-35L, 16-40L, etc, (some of which have been mentioned in this thread) just don't make sense to me, unless you know you're moving to full frame soon
and I'd rather move to full frame and stick to the 70-200 f/4L IS than buying the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
(as you can guess, I'm not a sports/wildlife shooter)


----------



## Jim K (Jan 21, 2012)

Norman,

What lenses should I get to replace my 100-400 and 500 f/4 on my 7Ds? I think I could get one of the black 70-300s to replace my 70-200 f/4L IS. 

BTW, I shoot birds down here in Florida.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 21, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> I'm not saying APS-C users should not care for IQ
> I'm saying lots of lenses designed for APS-C deliver much better IQ on APS-C than L zooms, at a fraction of the price



So exactly which lens are you talking about? There are only 3 good APS-C zooms?

I dont remember the 17-55 being cheap either ....


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

B419mac said:


> Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition



So you know someone that knows someone that works at Canon? Your friend could be completely full of crap (most 16 year olds are), just keep that in mind. The 100L Macro is $843 refurbished from Canon, so that would imply that your friend gets 60% off lenses, which is a pretty extreme discount. And most businesses put measures in place to avoid people abusing their employee discount, so I'd be careful with that.

When I worked at Apple you could get 25% off 1 notebook and/or 1 desktop once a year. Then you could also use a friends and family discount of 15%, 3 times per year. But the crazy part was that they could ask you to prove that you owned it if they suspected you were buying stuff to resell.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 22, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> B419mac said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition
> ...



Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen. If it's too good to be true...


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen. If it's too good to be true...



You're not cynical, you're just being logical and realistic based on previous experience. I've purchased almost all my lenses used, I know a good deal when I see one, but none of the deals I've gotten were anywhere close to this (maybe the 14L II for $1100, but that's one lens). One person having all the lenses this guy is talking about at below 1/2 price is highly unlikely.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route



Well, that was certainly the case for me. I am very demanding as far as image quality goes (if I was going to spend the money on a DSLR, I wanted significantly better quality than my point-and-shoot and I wasn't really getting it with the stock lens). I was never really part of the "L or nothing crowd" but funny thing- 2 years later, only one of my lenses is not L (that's the 17-55 2.8 ) Although I did have the 85 1.8 for a short while before trading it in.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 24, 2012)

Act444 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route
> ...



17-55 is an L in disguise, aside from the somewhat poor weather sealing I think it's an excellent lens, wonderful IQ.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 24, 2012)

Act444 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would suggest that APS-C owners do care about the IQ of their images and sometimes the only way is through the L route
> ...



I often have the 85 1.8 on my camera - it is an excellent lens. I also use a lot of L lens too - but I dont consider them bling either.

From last night - 1D4 + 85 1.8 - 1/320, iso 400, f/4.5, two flash off camera+pw


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:
 

> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I agree, and you can find them for $300 used all the time. Aside from the bokeh, my 85L II isn't significantly sharper than the 1.8. I think the 85L is a better lens for sure, but +$1700 better is certainly up for debate.


----------



## lbloom (Jan 24, 2012)

Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 24, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.



I would have thought a $300 lens was to the point - and why not a 85? He has a 7d not a landscape special, so faster and closer for sports (which the OP asked for) would be an ideal lens. ??? ??? ???


----------



## lbloom (Jan 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> lbloom said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the actual question at hand, my advice would be to spend less time collecting lenses and more time taking pictures and developing your skill. But since I wouldn't listen to that advice, go with a wider angle for your 7D.
> ...



Closer than the 24-105mm L (or the 55-250mm) that he already has? My reasoning was based on the focal lengths that his current lenses cover. I used my 85mm L on my 60D and I didn't like 135mm equivalent length for portraits - and 135mm does not seem very long for sports. He has 2 lenses that cover normal/short tele range and 24mm is not wide on a crop sensor. I think he should fill some missing numbers and try a wider lens, like the 10-22mm which his "friend" has for $450 or he can find on ebay well within his price range. 

B419mac did say he mainly shoots portraits, and the 85mm f/1.8 is no slouch of a lens, but why not upgrade to the 50mm f/1.4 on a 7D? Or if he really wants to get into sports, which is ideal on a 7D, then why not get the 70-200mm L IS that his friend will sell him?

It all comes down to what you want to shoot. Wide-angle just opens up such a new world, I recommend it. Who's to say he can't use the 10-22mm to capture some massive crowd/arena shots at a sports event? I'd even use a fisheye (R.I.P. 15mm f/2.8)!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 25, 2012)

lbloom said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > lbloom said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what he needs or wants, as cheap as his friend is supposedly selling those lenses it would be foolish not to buy all of them....if not for use, for resale, at which point he would have a much larger budget to get what he actually needs.


----------



## lbloom (Jan 25, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> It doesn't matter what he needs or wants, as cheap as his friend is supposedly selling those lenses it would be foolish not to buy all of them....if not for use, for resale, at which point he would have a much larger budget to get what he actually needs.



Well from an economic standpoint, sure.

Does it matter how the lenses were acquired by the friend from a legal standpoint? [since we are unconvinced of his honesty...]


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 26, 2012)

lbloom said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what he needs or wants, as cheap as his friend is supposedly selling those lenses it would be foolish not to buy all of them....if not for use, for resale, at which point he would have a much larger budget to get what he actually needs.
> ...



Nope, his friend told him it's someone that works at Canon, must be someone that works at Canon. Come on people I feel like we are calling a hooker an "escort" right now. Everyone is carrying on pretending like they don't think this kid is completely full of shit, or that his buddy isn't completely full of shit. 

I honestly laughed when I saw someone still trying to recommend lenses on the 3rd page. It's like "oh I'll avoid all this talk of stolen, broken lenses and just recommend the 85 1.8!"

I really think the kid is just making all of this up to create small talk honestly, some people are odd like that. I think he figured "hey stuff that's used usually sells for half price, so I'll say my buddy is selling these lenses for half price. durrr hurrrrr hurrrrrrrrr"
Followed by "oh S___ they almost the same price as new, RUUNNNNNN!"

Hence, the lack of posts after people pointing that out.


----------



## Jamesy (Jan 26, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Hence, the lack of posts after people pointing that out.



It certainly got us talking!!! If something seems too good to be true, it usually is


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I honestly laughed when I saw someone still trying to recommend lenses on the 3rd page. It's like "oh I'll avoid all this talk of stolen, broken lenses and just recommend the 85 1.8!"



If you read the threads carefully you will see that it was in context. 

I have to laugh when I find people criticising when someone goes back to answering the OP


----------



## CanonGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Well I got 7D as well and I've thought now to get 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS USM , Prime 50 f/1.4 and Wide 35 f/1.4 L USM


----------

