New - Canon 7D lens question

Shelly1204 · Dec 11, 2009

I'm new to photography, hoping to make it a new and relaxing hobby. I'm picking up a Canon 7D next week (currently using an Alpha 100). It comes with a 28-135mm IS Lens. What other lens should be my next purchase? I'll mostly be using it indoors, low light to shoot family and to learn on. I'll probably also be using it for video as well. Should I just spend the money on a good flash to use off camera instead? What would you suggest for both?

Thanks for your help!

p.s.- waiting for a "spend the money on a good photographer" comment in 3...2...1.... :lmao:

PhotoVerve · Dec 11, 2009

The 50mm f/1.8 is an amazing value. I own the 50mm f/1.4, and while I love it, I'm not sure it's entirely worth the money over the 1.8 for a first "extra" purchase.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 11, 2009

Yeah, the 50mm f/1.4 is a really sweet lens, definitely worth it over the 1.8 if you shoot Canon.

iolair · Dec 11, 2009

What's your budget, and what kind of photography do you prefer to do?

A 50mm prime lens is always good to have in your selection (whether the Canon 1.8, Canon 1.4 or Sigma 1.4), but if you're into specific types of photography you may also want something that goes wider or longer than the 28-135.

Shelly1204 · Dec 12, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
Yeah, the 50mm f/1.4 is a really sweet lens, definitely worth it over the 1.8 if you shoot Canon.

Awesome, thanks. I'll pick one up. Any recommendations for a flash?

And thanks to everyone for helping with such a newbie question. I'm trying to learn as much as I can. I ordered some great books this week (thanks to recommendations from this site), and I've been trying to find a camera class of some kind to boost my learning experience. My local community college's camera courses pretty much revolve around 35mm, which I don't see as being too productive for me right now (sure I'll learn some useful tips, but the courses focus way to much on darkroom techniques, etc., things I will never use as a hobbyist). I have a local camera store that teaches classes, but they're all basically on an elementary level, and I've taken them twice.

When I was a kid I took guitar lessons every week. I'd pay my $20, and get a half hour lesson for my hobby. I'd love it if a local photographer or camera store started offering lessons like that. I've approached a local photographer or two, and their response was basically sure, but for $100 an hour, no less.

Shelly1204 · Dec 12, 2009

iolair said:
What's your budget, and what kind of photography do you prefer to do?

A 50mm prime lens is always good to have in your selection (whether the Canon 1.8, Canon 1.4 or Sigma 1.4), but if you're into specific types of photography you may also want something that goes wider or longer than the 28-135.

I have a semi healthy budget. It's a hobby, not a profession for me, so I'd like to stay conservative. With that said, if it costs a little more to buy a lens or flash that is far superior to the next cheapest option, I'd rather go for quality.

I'm mostly shooting either people indoors, or outdoor landscapes in the summer.

rufus5150 · Dec 12, 2009

Another vote for the 50mm 1.4. I have both it and the 7D and it's a great lens and has enough umph to match the 7D's rather aggressive pixel density. Beyond that if you're sticking to budgetwise, the 17-40 F4 L (walk around), 70-200 F4 L (telephoto), Sigma 10-20 (wide angle), 85mm f1.8 (portrait) are all excellent as well (with no budget restrictions, sub in the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, the 85mm f1.2 and a bow-flex if you indent on hand-holding either for extended periods of time).

The 7D and most consumer-grade lenses aren't going to play nicely with one another. It demands at least the bottom half of the upper end of glass. I would be surprised if even the kit lens could keep up with that thing.

Shelly1204 · Dec 12, 2009

rufus5150 said:
Another vote for the 50mm 1.4. I have both it and the 7D and it's a great lens and has enough umph to match the 7D's rather aggressive pixel density. Beyond that if you're sticking to budgetwise, the 17-40 F4 L (walk around), 70-200 F4 L (telephoto), Sigma 10-20 (wide angle), 85mm f1.8 (portrait) are all excellent as well (with no budget restrictions, sub in the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, the 85mm f1.2 and a bow-flex if you indent on hand-holding either for extended periods of time).

The 7D and most consumer-grade lenses aren't going to play nicely with one another. It demands at least the bottom half of the upper end of glass. I would be surprised if even the kit lens could keep up with that thing.

Sweet, thanks! So do you think when I buy the 7D I should pay a bit more and start with the 17-40 F4 L in place of the 28-135mm IS? I'll definitely pick up the 50mm 1.4 as well.

DerekSalem · Dec 12, 2009

I'd say the first 2 lenses you should look at are obviously the 50mm 1.8 (they're under $100 on amazon) and either a Sigma 28-300 or Sigma 18-200. The 18-200 is good amount more expensive, but the 28-300 is fairly cheap (28-300 is only around $280 used and the 18-200 is around $365 used although it comes with basic stabilization). I started with the 28-300 and I'm actually waiting for my 18-200 to arrive Monday lol I loved the other Sigma, but I recently bought the 50mm and now I'm just trying to get something that can cover all my bases (I don't have the kit lens).

rufus5150 · Dec 12, 2009

Those sigma are great walk-around lenses for a rebel. The 7D will show their flaws in all of their glory.

So do you think when I buy the 7D I should pay a bit more and start with the 17-40 F4 L in place of the 28-135mm IS?

I'm not going to tell you how to spend your money, but read the reviews of the 17-40 and make an educated decision.

The 28-135 is a much larger range which you may miss out on if you buy the 17-40.

Derrel · Dec 12, 2009

I would say that the 50mm focal length on 1.6x cameras, like the 7D, is a bit too narrow for most indoor shooting situations in homes; it's great as a short telephoto at a basketball game, but a 50mm is awfully narrow in a living room or at close distances.

I think you ought to look at a 3rd party Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 or a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as a way to get some wide-angle, semi-wide-angle, and slightly narrower angles of view in a lens that will actually FOCUS indoors in poorer light. The 28-135mm IS is a rather old lens, and at longer zoom settings, it does not admit much light; certainly not enough for indoor, non-flash work.

As far as the Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II lens...I had one. It had okay sharpness, but the lens has a lot of problems when shooting toward the light, its focusing is somewhat sketchy,and it's just not anywhere near the quality of other Canon lenses. Canon's 50/1.4 EF, OTOH, is a very fine 50mm lens.

rufus5150 · Dec 12, 2009

I would say that the 50mm focal length on 1.6x cameras, like the 7D, is a bit too narrow for most indoor shooting situations in homes; it's great as a short telephoto at a basketball game, but a 50mm is awfully narrow in a living room or at close distances.

That's all I used for indoor shooting for a long time. I suppose if you live in a teeeeny tiny house...

Derrel · Dec 12, 2009

rufus5150 said:
I would say that the 50mm focal length on 1.6x cameras, like the 7D, is a bit too narrow for most indoor shooting situations in homes; it's great as a short telephoto at a basketball game, but a 50mm is awfully narrow in a living room or at close distances.

Click to expand...

That's all I used for indoor shooting for a long time. I suppose if you live in a teeeeny tiny house...

Why then, pray tell, is an 18-55 considered a standard lens for a 1.6x body? 55mm is the "tele" end. Actually, we have a huge house...quite large and designed for handicapped access so it's possible to use a 200mm indoors for a half body shot...sliding doors on many room-to-room transitions,unlike most homes.

On a Canon 1.6x body with a 50mm lens, standing 15 feet from a 6 foot tall man, the field of view is 6.75 feet tall by 4.5 feet wide. Let's say you have an eight foot tall Christmas tree...you only need to be 20 feet away from it to get a shot of it full length, leaving 6 inches at the top and six inches at the bottom, for a 9.0 foot x 6 foot wide frame with a 50mm on 1.6x.

Field of View - Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses

Shelly1204 · Dec 12, 2009

Thanks for the help guys. :hug::

I'm doing lots of research, and trying to learn as much as I can. Looks like I'll go with 3 lenses. the kit lens (28-135mm IS) might as well since it's so cheap with the body; a 17-40 F4 L (was torn between this and a Sigma 10-50mm f2.8); and an 85mm f1.8. I'll save up, and when the weather gets nicer, I'll pick up a 70-200 F4 L.

...unless one of you thinks I'm making a big mistake. :lmao:

keith foster · Dec 12, 2009

Those will be great lenses and way more flexibility and quality than most of us had to start out. Not a big mistake at all. Have fun with the new hobby. Have you checked for photography classes at a local community college. Around here our community colleges offer some adult education classes for beginners in digital photo that meet a couple of Saturdays and the classes are usually around $100 for the 16 hours pf class.