Question Regarding the Best Lens to Start with for the 7d

M

Murkurial

New member
I didn't want to co-opt someone else's thread and this question (hopefully) won't take too much to answer but I was doing a bit of research on the details of the different types of lenses and came across this page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.

If anyone checks that page out, if you scroll down the author has a comparison between the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens and the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. The differences were pretty noticeable and made it appear that the latter lens was very inferior.

My first question is, would this have something to do with the variable aperture because the focal length is about the same. And if that's the case can I expect to get similar results from the kit lens that comes with the 7d? Also, I've noticed the the focal length range for the kit lens is far more broad than 17/18-55 and I've heard that the broader the range the more that IQ can suffer. Is this the case?

Lastly, what exactly would be the most striking benefit of a "prime" lens like one that is solely 35mm as opposed to one with a very narrow focal length range?

Any help would be greatly appreciated and before anyone asks, I haven't picked up the camera yet but it will be my first DSLR. Just trying to get a little more educated on the subject as some this stuff is a bit confusing.
 
Last edited:
It's not the variable aperture. It's just the fact that the lens uses an inferior optical formula, inferior glass and coatings, inferior build quality. The 18-55mm can be bought for around $150. The 17-55mm can be bought for $900, six times the price. The 17-55mm is a top-of-the line lens, almost the same quality as the L series (except that there are no EF-S lenses in the L series). It's like comparing a Kia to a Lexus.

Yes, zoom lenses with narrower ranges tend to perform better. They also tend to be quite expensive.

Prime lenses can be faster than zoom lenses. There are almost no zoom lenses faster than f/2.8 in the still photo world. (I can think of two, but they do not work with the 7D.) They tend to offer better image quality because the lens designs are simpler, requiring fewer glass elements. The more surfaces through which light passes, the more the light degrades. Thus, zoom lenses often have lower light transmission, less contrast, and less sharpness than prime lenses at the same aperture and focal length. The best quality zoom lenses can deliver image quality just as good as most primes, however.
 
Last edited:
BTW, a $150 price tag for a brand new, modern autofocus zoom lens means that it's basically junk. Bottom of the barrel. Only for those who have no money. Canon cut corners in pretty much every aspect in order to deliver a zoom lens at that price. It's probably not even worth $150; after all, the Canon brand name caries a certain premium. Any decent AF zoom lens will cost several hundred dollars, brand new.

If you want something close to the quality of the 17-55mm but can't find $900 for it, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. You can find it for $300-400. There's a new version with image stabilization that's priced at roughly $600.
 
Thanks for the detailed responses.

How would rate the lens that comes bundled with the 7D if you're just starting out? I believe it's something like 28-135mm f/3.5-??. I do plan on investing in top quality lenses but early on as I try to wrap my head around using the camera I think I'll be sticking with the kit lens for a bit and I'm wondering if I can expect to get some impressive IQ with that lens (once I know what I'm doing of course).

I've read a few of the 7D vs 5D Mk II comparisons threads and I've found most people saying that the 5D would be ideal if you were using the camera strictly for photography (I think a few guys mentioned it having something to do with the full-frame aspect) but I've heard just as many say that the difference in IQ for still shots isn't massive between the two (in favor of the 5D). I think I'm slightly more interested in the 7D's HD video capabilities at the moment but that's not to say that I don't care about the still image quality at all either. With that said, what lenses would you recommend for both still photography and video (I know that you can use them for both but, for example, is there a specific focal length that can give a video shot with the 7D a particularly film-like quality?)?
 
Last edited:
The EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is an OK lens, from what I've read. Not great, but not terrible either. However, depending on your shooting style, you might not find it to be wide enough. There's an alternate 7D kit available with an EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens with image stabilization that is supposed to be quite good. One of the better-known professional members here tried it recently and came away impressed: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=192457

The lens is more expensive, but only by $100. So the kit that includes it has an MSRP of $1999.

The most commonly used focal lengths in 35mm motion pictures are 24mm or 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm. A cinema lens package from a rental house will most often include them as standard. Those are also the focal lengths of the RED Pro Prime lens package. (RED makes only one other prime, a 300mm, but it's sold separately from the package.) You'll also want fast lenses. f/2.8 is good enough, but if you can afford f/1.4 or f/2.0, then all the better. Most movies these days are shot at around f/2.8 or a stop or two slower.
 
ydgmdlu said:
The most commonly used focal lengths in 35mm motion pictures are 24mm or 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. My primes are nearly exactly that 24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and I use a 75-150/3.5 zoom as a variable prime to cover the long end and the toki 11-16/2.8 on the ultra wide end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top