Buying 7d or 60d - need help planning lenses

[Leftyplayer]

As I mentioned in a post a bit back, I'm moving on up. I was considering going full-frame, but, honestly, the more I read (and touch) the full frames, they don't feel right for me just yet. Too heavy and bulky - my #1 criteria for initial narrowing down has been "does this feel right in my hands, strapped around my neck?" ... it's the guide I use for my guitars and it's a method that has worked well for me in making sure I make choices that suit me and not the next guy. So 1.6 crop it is (1Ds out of my budget, so didn't even look).

Soooooo .. 7D or 60D is the question that I will answer for myself very soon, when I head down to Adorama and rent each one to play with. What I'm left with is planning the rest of the gear, particularly lenses. Currently, I just have the kit lenses 17-35mm 3.5-5.6, and 70-200mm 4-5.6, and the 50mm 1.8. I would keep the kit lense as back-up or whatever, but the quality is not in par with what I want now.

The lenses I'm pondering:

24-70mm f/2.8 L or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.8mm

Concerns:
1. Love the IS of the 17-55, but that lense would leave me with a gap in a very usable part of the range 55-70mm.

2. The wide end of the 24-70 won't be wide enough for me on a crop. I considered buying a super wide (played with Canon's 10-22mm recently and it was neat), but I hate all the lense changing. Also the 24-70 doesn't have IS (do I have that correct?) and I do mostly 99% hand-held.

3. I worry whether these lenses will be too heavy on a 1.6 body? On that note,

4. Would it be stupid to get the cheaper 70-200 f/2.8 WITHOUT IS?

5. I'm wondering if Tamron or Sigma offer other types of ranges, and there might be a 17-105 f/2.8 type lense by a third party that I've missed. If so, (even if not) ...

6. I can't help but wonder if I would get the same quality buying Sigma or Tamron for my lenses ... it's hard to tell if people stick to the brand (Canon) out of ego/pride/loyalty/show-offiness/being rich or whether those other brands are actually inferior??

 

[Robin Usagani]

Too heavy and bulky? Are serious? It wont be any different than a 7D.

1Ds is full frame.
1D is cropped but only 1.3.

 

[Robin Usagani]

After reading your post one more time, I really think you are misinformed.

As I mentioned in a post a bit back, I'm moving on up. I was considering going full-frame, but, honestly, the more I read (and touch) the full frames, they don't feel right for me just yet. Too heavy and bulky - my #1 criteria for initial narrowing down has been "does this feel right in my hands, strapped around my neck?" ... it's the guide I use for my guitars and it's a method that has worked well for me in making sure I make choices that suit me and not the next guy. So 1.6 crop it is (1Ds out of my budget, so didn't even look).

Soooooo .. 7D or 60D is the question that I will answer for myself very soon, when I head down to Adorama and rent each one to play with. What I'm left with is planning the rest of the gear, particularly lenses. Currently, I just have the kit lenses 17-35mm 3.5-5.6, and 70-200mm 4-5.6, and the 50mm 1.8. I would keep the kit lense as back-up or whatever, but the quality is not in par with what I want now.

The lenses I'm pondering:

24-70mm f/2.8 L or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
85mm f/1.8

Concerns:
1. Love the IS of the 17-55, but that lense would leave me with a gap in a very usable part of the range 55-70mm.

2. The wide end of the 24-70 won't be wide enough for me on a crop. I considered buying a super wide (played with Canon's 10-22mm recently and it was neat), but I hate all the lense changing. Also the 24-70 doesn't have IS (do I have that correct?) and I do mostly 99% hand-held.

3. I worry whether these lenses will be too heavy on a 1.6 body? On that note,

4. Would it be stupid to get the cheaper 70-200 f/2.8 WITHOUT IS?

5. I'm wondering if Tamron or Sigma offer other types of ranges, and there might be a 17-105 f/2.8 type lense by a third party that I've missed. If so, (even if not) ...

6. I can't help but wonder if I would get the same quality buying Sigma or Tamron for my lenses ... it's hard to tell if people stick to the brand (Canon) out of ego/pride/loyalty/show-offiness/being rich or whether those other brands are actually inferior??

 

[Destin]

Too heavy and bulky? Are serious? It wont be any different than a 7D.

1Ds is full frame.
1D is cropped but only 1.3.

Agreed. Having handled both the 7d and the 5d mkII, I would definitely say that the 7d feels heavier and bulkier in my hand. It's built like a tank, with almost full metal construction, where as the 5d mkII is built with MUCH more plastic, and is quite a bit lighter than the 7d, in my experience.

 

[analog.universe]

So... the 5D and 7D are about the same size and weight, no? But that aside, about your lens questions...

I wouldn't worry about the gap between 55 and 70 personally, getting down to 17 is a big deal on crop if you don't intend on getting a wide angle in addition to your normal zoom. That 17-55 is a really nice looking lens, if you're sure you're not going full frame any time soon, that would probably the direction I would go.

I have the 85 1.8, and it's awesome! Great lens for the money, sharp, superfast focus, certainly recommend.

You could also look into the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS? It's like $1000 less than the canon and has been getting great reviews.

 

[Leftyplayer]

p.s. I shoot a lot of street and arty-fartsy stuff, which I can do with almost any fast lense ... but I'm lately focusing on doing more portrait and newborn photos (in this type of style: Coco b. Sweet Photography | Hudson Valley Maternity & Newborn Photographer (maybe the example of what I WANT to do will help someone guide me)

 

[Leftyplayer]

Interesting. Well, I've held the full frames because have some friends that had it at a shoot and thought it was definitely heavy and bulky. I have NOT held a 7D and did just ASSume that it would be lighter given that it's a crop. I've read that the 60D *is* in fact lighter, so good to know. Like I said, I'll have to hold them in my hands and, from the replies, sounds like the 7D won't may also feel a bit heavy. Granted, it is not inconceivable I would get used to it ... but my past experience (guitars, mostly) suggests it should be right from the beginning (I should mention I suffer from tendonitis in my hands, hence part of the need for comfort as a priority). Good to know the 7D may not fulfill my light-weight wishes - nevertheless, will go feel it for myself and, features considered, will have to decide what matters most after all.

 

[Robin Usagani]

If you want to shoot babies, full frame. No argument there.

 

[chaosrealm93]

if you're planning to go full frame eventually, buying FF lenses would be a wise move. for the two cameras you suggested, i would recommend the 24-70mm. its a versatile range with the 1.6x crop on those bodies. and if some time down the road you go FF, get the 70-200mm

3. i can tell you from experience that a pro lens like the 24-70mm on a cropped frame body does make it feel front heavy and would require two hands all the time, however it isn't to the point where it is overwhelming

4. i would recommend the IS version, especially when you're shooting in the 150mm+ range. not every shot you want is going to have that perfect lighting and you might have to slow you shutter (assuming you care about noise). yes, it would cost more than the non-IS versions, but i would regard that as a good asset to a lens

hope my opinions helped

 

[Leftyplayer]

Thanks for all the various suggestions.

If you want to shoot babies, full frame. No argument there.

Why?

More generally, it appears from what I often read that there's a sense that one must grow toward the full frame cameras. It's just the assumed direction of upgrade. How come? Are the additional AF points really THAT big a deal? (yes, probably a naive question, but even those must be asked).

 

[Destin]

Thanks for all the various suggestions.

If you want to shoot babies, full frame. No argument there.

Why?

More generally, it appears from what I often read that there's a sense that one must grow toward the full frame cameras. It's just the assumed direction of upgrade. How come? Are the additional AF points really THAT big a deal? (yes, probably a naive question, but even those must be asked).

The biggest reasons to go full frame are:

-Bigger, brighter viewfinder

-less DOF, and therefore better bokeh

-better high iso performance due to the larger pixels and lower pixel density.

-No crop factor, so they are much better for wide angle work.

I'm sure I'm forgetting ALOT of things, but these are generally the most important ones I hear mentioned.

 

[o hey tyler]

Thanks for all the various suggestions.

If you want to shoot babies, full frame. No argument there.

Why?

More generally, it appears from what I often read that there's a sense that one must grow toward the full frame cameras. It's just the assumed direction of upgrade. How come? Are the additional AF points really THAT big a deal? (yes, probably a naive question, but even those must be asked).

The biggest reasons to go full frame are:

-Bigger, brighter viewfinder

-less DOF, and therefore better bokeh

The viewfinder differs mainly from the pentamirror to the pentaprism. The rebels have a pentamirror which is the reason that the viewfinder is dimmer. I THINK the xxD bodies all have pentaprism, even though they aren't full frame. The 7D definitely has a big bright viewfinder with 100% frame coverage.

Also, there isn't 'less depth of field' on a full frame camera. That's just not true. However the reason why there is much more background control is because you can get closer to the subject to frame the shot at maximum zoom/minimum focus distance. Whereas you'd need to stand back x# of feet on a crop frame camera to frame the same shot. This is the reason why FX cameras have better background control.

The 1.6x cameras don't get any of the corner distortion or lack of sharpness around the edges because it's cropped out too.

 

[aliancer]

The biggest reasons to go full frame are:

-Bigger, brighter viewfinder

-less DOF, and therefore better bokeh

-better high iso performance due to the larger pixels and lower pixel density.

-No crop factor, so they are much better for wide angle work.

I'm sure I'm forgetting ALOT of things, but these are generally the most important ones I hear mentioned.

Totally agree with this one. If you really in this field, then mkII is the top recommendation. Also in some case, 5D mkII and 7D don't have too much gap on the price, it's only about the needed, because 7D is faster in burst rate and autofocus (capturing moment), built in flash for emergency, and one step better in video framerate (60fps in 720p)

I have myself a 60D, because I'm just need the canon to shoot video, and holding myself to get the budget enough to get the 5D mkIII hopefully next year

Sent from my iPad using PhotoForum

 

[tokameaki]

thank u guys....the answers here were very helpful...love this forum already...i will def buy a canon rebel t3i in like two months....and i will also wait for the mark III next year...hopefully the new canon mark III is wayyyyy better than the 70d....bc it looks like the 70d shoots faster per second, and its not that heavy...lets see! still doing my research with nikons...so far i like what i have read from canons

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I have the 7D and prior to that I had a XTI, so my lenses have grown with me. When I get to the Mark I may have to repurchase a lens. But to your questions:

As I mentioned in a post a bit back, I'm moving on up. I was considering going full-frame, but, honestly, the more I read (and touch) the full frames, they don't feel right for me just yet. Too heavy and bulky - my #1 criteria for initial narrowing down has been "does this feel right in my hands, strapped around my neck?" ... it's the guide I use for my guitars and it's a method that has worked well for me in making sure I make choices that suit me and not the next guy. So 1.6 crop it is (1Ds out of my budget, so didn't even look).

Soooooo .. 7D or 60D is the question that I will answer for myself very soon, when I head down to Adorama and rent each one to play with. What I'm left with is planning the rest of the gear, particularly lenses. Currently, I just have the kit lenses 17-35mm 3.5-5.6, and 70-200mm 4-5.6, and the 50mm 1.8. I would keep the kit lense as back-up or whatever, but the quality is not in par with what I want now.

The lenses I'm pondering:

24-70mm f/2.8 L or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Have the 17-55. Great walk around lens. I have no regrets what so ever amping up the $$$ for this one. I will not be able to use it when I go FF. But I will have two good cameras to walk around with if I want.
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Have this in the f/4. It alternates on my camera between the 17-55, can't say which one I use more.
85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.8mm Have the 85mm, use it from time to time but I have this range covered already with the 70-200.

Concerns:
1. Love the IS of the 17-55, but that lense would leave me with a gap in a very usable part of the range 55-70mm. Dunno about that for me.

2. The wide end of the 24-70 won't be wide enough for me on a crop. I considered buying a super wide (played with Canon's 10-22mm recently and it was neat), but I hate all the lense changing. Also the 24-70 doesn't have IS (do I have that correct?) and I do mostly 99% hand-held. I have Sigma 10-20 that fills the gap here. Lens is perfectly fine compared to the Canon, and I do us this range a good bit.

3. I worry whether these lenses will be too heavy on a 1.6 body? On that note, Definitely not. I either wrap the stap around my wrist a few times and walk around with camera in hand or hold the camera by the long lens, but that is what I am used to doing.

4. Would it be stupid to get the cheaper 70-200 f/2.8 WITHOUT IS? Don't do it. Emphatically don't do it unless you want to carry a tripod whereever you go as well.

5. I'm wondering if Tamron or Sigma offer other types of ranges, and there might be a 17-105 f/2.8 type lense by a third party that I've missed. If so, (even if not) ...

6. I can't help but wonder if I would get the same quality buying Sigma or Tamron for my lenses ... it's hard to tell if people stick to the brand (Canon) out of ego/pride/loyalty/show-offiness/being rich or whether those other brands are actually inferior?? Take a look at dpreviews.com for lens reviews. Cameras too for that matter. They often do side by side comparisons of brands and you can easisly decide how you feel after you see the work they have done for you. In some instances others lenses are better than Canon.