You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.

Best canon lens on a limited budget

I am toying with changing my system, the main contender being a Canon 7D.

Assuming that is the body I gfo for what lens shoiuld I pair it with ?

I m skint so I woil only be able to get one really good lens to begin with, what would you go for with stock in mind ?

Hopefully I will gradually increase my lenses but would rather start with something good that will keep me happy.


Posted: 11/06/2011, 11:12:00 AM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM cheap and good.
Posted: 11/06/2011, 11:32:44 AM
It depends on what you like to shoot.

Either the Canon EF 17-40 or the 24-105,
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 11/06/2011, 19:50:24 PM
If you don't go for the kit package, there's a EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS ($699.99). If you want to spend a bit more, EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($2,689.00). Both have a wide range focal length. It will cover just about everything.
II, Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro...
Posted: 11/06/2011, 21:49:36 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I think I am leaning toward a 24-105 as it is an L series lens.

Would that make a good combo with the 7D?

Does anyone have any opinions regarding this lens with the 7D or should I bite teh bullett and pair it with a 5D MkII.

The cost is obviousley more but just about achievable if i live on bread and water for a month.
Edited: 11/07/2011, 00:27:32 AM
24-105mm f/4.0 L is a great starter lens. I used it on a 5D MkII. Some of my photos in my port was shot with a 24-105mm f/4.0 L. I've now sold that for a faster lens, 16-35 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. It's a great start for the 24-105. When you decide to upgrade, I'm sure you can sell the 24-105 10%-15% lower than what you paid for it. I ended up selling mine for exactly what I paid and I had it for 3 years.
II, Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro...
Posted: 11/07/2011, 01:14:50 AM
Itr depends what you shoot and how you shoot, I recently picked up the 50mm f1.8 and it is an astounding upgrade from the kit lens, it has spurred me on in my desire or another prime and now hanker after the 35mm f2...

Most of my images are shot in the 50-55mm and 25-35mm range so primes make sense for me and the image quality versus cost is amazing, you should be able to bópick the both up in the US for less than 300usd.

There is a 100% crop of an image from the 50mm f1.8 at the bottom of a blog I wrote a couple of months back

Camera and time :D
Edited: 11/07/2011, 02:21:31 AM
The combo with the 5D makes much more sense, 24mm in an APS-C would mean 38mm equivalent which is not wide enough.

When I had an APS-C (the 50D), I had two lenses, a 10-22 and a 24-105, it was a wonderful kit, but I was changing lenses all the time.

With the 5D, most of the time I am with the 24-105, I use very rarely a 17-40 and a 70-300 when I want to pull some details.

Qualitywise, there is no comparison between the 5D and the 7D, but its a slow camera for sports and you will miss the 60% zoom added by an APS-C.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 11/07/2011, 04:23:18 AM

I'm not too worried about teh speed but I am worried about missing the zoom effect of the crop factor, also is it harder to achieve an adequate depth of field with a full frame camera for a given aperture, my understanding may be skewed but the greater teh crop factor the wider the dof?
Posted: 11/07/2011, 12:02:14 PM
The DOF is not an issue, you can close the lens more with a full frame and the diffraction wont appear.

About the zoom, a 70-300 is very usefull with a full frame.

If you need more you would need a teleconverter.

I was looking at your portfolio, Spooner, and a 24-105 with a 5d probably could deliver all that kind of pictures for you.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Edited: 11/07/2011, 17:55:53 PM
Not knowing on what you want to shoot...I'd have a serious think about the camera I need...if you're planning on doing fast sports with fast bursts then forget the 5D mk2...If you're going for normal everyday stuff buy a cheaper body eg 550D and invest what you save, in the lens...the 24-105 is a good alrounder but limited in low light situations.

The 7D is a real good alrounder and gives really good images over 90% of my images I take with it.........but you're wasting your money if you're sticking a kit lens on it.

If I were you I'd go for a 550D or if you have some experience then look for a second hand 40D or 50D.

I also agree with llareggub...the 50mm 1.8 is a first class lens. Another cheap but good lens is the Sigma 17-70 HSM .

Fact is...investing in a 7D or a 5D Mk2 will bring you nothing if you stick a standard kit lens on it.

I'd go for a second hand 50D and a second hand 24-70 f2.8 L USM...you can do a lot with that combo and you'll probably still pay less than with a 7D and definitely with a 5D Mk2.

L Canon 24-70 USM L Canon 100-400 IS USM L Canon 17-40 f4 L...
Posted: 11/08/2011, 07:02:22 AM
Thanks fo the thougths folks.

I am definitely going to get a decent lens, not a kit one.

I am erring on a 5d with 24-105 initially with a good prime to follow.

I know trhe 5d is expensive.....but....from what the consensus I can find it is probably the best image quality with a decent lens without spending an absolute fortune. I am expecting a learning curve going fron 2x crop factor to full frame.
Posted: 11/08/2011, 13:23:56 PM