Renewing all my gear, assorting lenses to my 7D !

[Steve U]

I had the 70-200 IS and it was a very good lens that I tended to leave at home, because of the weight. I bought the 70-300mm L and couldn

[neuroanatomist]

So, two suggestions:


7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer), smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to shoot in M mode.


7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Narrower focal range, bigger and heavier, more expensive, fast and constant f/2.8 through the range for better low light utility and much better OOF blur for portraits.


Personally, I

[w0lverine]

So, two suggestions:


7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer), smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to shoot in M mode.


7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Narrower focal range, bigger and heavier, more expensive, fast and constant f/2.8 through the range for better low light utility and much better OOF blur for portraits.


Personally, I'd choose the latter (in fact, I *did* choose the latter) - a fast aperture is worth the tradeoffs in cost and weight, to me. However, with the cost savings from the former set, you could add a nice prime such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light work.

I wouldn't have summarized the situation better =)


Considering my previous kit (18-55 F/3.5-5.6 and 55-250 F/4.5-5.6)n I can't say I know what working under a big aperture is. That's why the 70-200 is appealing (not appalling as written in the first place, my bad) Again, very heavy (remember I do mostly handheld photography) and very expensive.

<span>]I had the 70-200 IS and it was a very good lens that I tended to
leave at home, because of the weight. I bought the 70-300mm L and
couldn't be happier, it goes with me everywhere plus 2 wide primes. The
IS on the 70-300 L is very good and it works well indoors with good
light and very good outside for portrait or landscape.


Rick's arguments about the quality of the 70-200 2.8L II are compelling and it is the best, without question.


Your considerations of the 15-85 and 70-300L will give you a very,
very good base kit and will get you out there taking photos with the
tools to produce very good images.


Go for it and consider a fast prime down the road a bit later.

Thank you for your opinion. I am indeed concerned about its weight, I like to go out a lot, "off the cuff" (is that even used in english ?) - I mean, without planning.





In the end, here's what I chose :
Come winter sales time (around december-jan-fev here), if the 7D is discounted with the 15-85 (i'm guessing 1,500 instead of 2,000&euro, i'll buy it with the 70-200 IS II.
If not, i'll go for the 70-300 and buy a prime later on.





I'd like to thank you all for your time, your kindness and for being constructively argumentative.

[Kayaker72]

A couple of quick thoughts:

[Kayaker72]

Ok, that is weird, I wrote a longer post and only the first line made it. I

[Dr Croubie]

7D, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF
70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Broader focal range (wider and longer),
smaller/lighter lenses, cheaper kit, slow and variable aperture
therefore worse in low light and much less OOF blur, plus harder to
shoot in M mode.

That's my exact kit (plus
niftyfifty f/1.8, and a lot of older MF gear), and I don't think i'd trade it for anything else. OK,
so the 17-55 is faster than the 15-85, and arguably sharper, but
bigger, heavier, and more expensive.


The 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x II
teleconverter you might get for a smidge more than the 70-300L, from
everything i've read the 70-300L is a mosquito's moustache sharper, but
it's definitely more compact and only a bit heavier vs the 70-200f/4L IS
+ TC (ease of changing to 200-300mm range in dusty environments, big
winner for 70-300L for me).


OK, maybe i would trade it for the 17-55 + 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. but not paying the extra &euro;1060 for it (it may be worth the money, i just can't afford it)


.


For the shooting in M mode, i've never had a problem.
Mostly I work in Av (and that's mainly because you can't set +/- EV in M
mode with AutoISO), but even in M you just have to frame first, then
get exposure right. Zooming after framing only makes you need to re-set
exposure if you're wide-open.


.


Macro with 70-300L is great
and easy with my Kenko Tubes (MF only, AF just hunts). Of course I would
like a 100mm L macro (who wouldn't?) but can't justify the expense
right now.


.


As for neuro's 2 choices, they're &euro;1990 vs
&euro;3050 (lens only, body extra), and that's not really fair, who wouldn't
take the f/2.8 double if they had the cash?


i'd be more inclined
to pair the 15-85 + 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II (&euro;2840) vs the 17-55 + 70-300L
(&euro;2200) prices are closer that way (a bit more at least), and it sets
out a choice between fast wide and long all-round length, vs all-round
wide and faster tele.


Then if you've still got the budget you can add the 100mm macro for &euro;485 or 100mm L macro for &euro;820. (and I hear good things about the Sigma 150mm macro, IS and weather sealed to boot). Or even the MP-E 65 for &euro;960, but you have to be *really* dedicated to macro for that one...

[Fast Glass]

I'd go with the 17-55mm and 70-200mm II kit as my first choice. And the 15-85mm and 70-200mm II as my second. To me the 70-300mm L was designed for a diferent group of people, bigger focal length range and lighter. More of a travel type lens were DOF is not so important. The 70-200mm II is much better suited for potriats, sports and photogernalism were thinner DOF isimportant. For me personally two stops at the long is a huge disadvatage. I have held a 70-200mm f2.8 IS original and it's not that heavy. Compared to the 55-250mm it's a beast but that lens is very light and most other pro lenses feel heavy in comparison. Hell, the 300mm f/2.8 is considered light by super telephoto standards!


Is it overkill, mabye. But the way I look at it is you will grow into it and won't have to upgrade untill the III comes out in 10+ years! And think you will apriciate the extra capabilty this lens has right from the get go.


Cheers,


John.

[w0lverine]

Thank you for you interest in my case.


To be honest, I don

[Dr Croubie]

If you

[thekingb]

I used to own the 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it to get the 70-300L IS. While I miss the constant f/4 sometimes, the 70-300 is, IMHO, a better lens because it is much mor versatile and just as good optically -- even at 300mm. it