Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Lenses for Canon 7d

profile picture
RedNas
Posts: 14 - Karma: 34
I'm buying a Canon 7d in the near future, but I have no idea which lenses to get. I need one "standard" lens and a fisheye or wide-angle lens. I'll be filming mostly action sports like skiing, snowboarding, skating and BMX, but might do some "normal" filming too. Would really appreciate it if some of you could give some advice on which lenses to buy, and if I should get ether a fisheye or a wide angle.
Jan 5 2011 12:34PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,366
Personal recommendations

Canon 24-105 4L IS USM -----Standard
Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non-VC ---Standard
Canon 17-40 4L USM --------Wide
Tokina 11-16 2.8 -----------Wide
Jan 5 2011 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61710 - Karma: 124,305
70-200 4L or 2.8L for zoom
check out a 35mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.4 too.
Jan 5 2011 2:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,403
well if you want a fisheye, pick up a rokina 8mm for under $300 new. Full manual so there isn't any auto focus, but its a fisheye so that really shouldn't matter, other then that, evan and jamie both listed solid recommendations
Jan 5 2011 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
RedNas
Posts: 14 - Karma: 34
thanks guys, I'll check'em out! But what would you recommend for my use, a fisheye or a wide angle lens?
Jan 5 2011 3:11PM
0 0
profile picture
jibbinc.
Posts: 3355 - Karma: 2,497
check the Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8
350$ on ebPr
Jan 5 2011 5:10PM
0 0
profile picture
JStrathern
Posts: 8747 - Karma: 1,536
Anyone know any lenses similar to the Tokina 11-16 but more in the $350-$500 price range rather than $600?
Jan 5 2011 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
no to this fisheye recommendation. your camera is only as good as the glass you put on it. if you want a fisheye buy a tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5, very solid fisheye, its gonna run you up probably close to double the price of the rokinon but i can guarantee the glass quality is a hell of a lot better.
Jan 5 2011 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
the tokina is most definitely not a fisheye, especially not on a crop sensor camera like the 7d. it's an amazzzzzzing lens though, hoping to cop it soon
Jan 5 2011 8:29PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,274
canon 10-22 for wide, 24-105 for mid-range. perfect quiver
Jan 5 2011 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
. 24-105 F4L is such a nice lens. I've only ever used it for photo's, not video, but i loved it.
Jan 5 2011 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
you are the second person on this site to tell me this lens is not a fisheye. ITS A FISHEYE, EVERY REVIEW CALLS IT A FISHEYE, WHEN I LOOK THROUGH SAID LENS WHEN IT'S MOUNTED ON MY CAMERA THE FISHEYE EFFECT IS VISIBLY NOTICEABLE. look at every fisheyed photo on my flickr, ALL WERE TAKEN WITH THIS LENS.

this picture was taken with TOKINA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 on a rebel XSi, a camera with the same crop sensor as a 7D (1.6x). are you seriously going to tell me this was not taken with a fisheye lens?

Click for larger image


still don't believe me? here is a list of websites talking about this FISHEYE LENS.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/271-tokina-af-10-17mm-f35-45-at-x-dx-fisheye-review--test-report

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/10-17mm.htm

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx107afdx-a.html

http://www.dphotojournal.com/tokina-10-17mm-f35-45-fish-eye-reviews-sample-photos/

but you're probably right, its not a fisheye, i've just been using this lens for over a year and know absolutely NOTHING about it.
Jan 5 2011 9:25PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31061 - Karma: 29,366
lol at kids not knowing the difference between the 11-16 and the 10-17
Jan 5 2011 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
whoa jeez chill the fuck out haha i thought you were talking about the 11-16, jesus haha
Jan 5 2011 9:50PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,274
it's a great outdoor lens. for low light portraits i use a 50mm 1.8 but yeah, the 24-105 is incredibly sharp and nice, fantastic lens. the 10-22 spends the most time on my camera though. i upgraded from a sigma 10-20 and it's just amazing. so so so fun. i love UWA lenses
Jan 5 2011 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
and of course i quoted the wrong person
Jan 5 2011 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted2
Posts: 958 - Karma: 107
Not to be a douche, but he did say 10-17.
Jan 5 2011 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
i thought he meant 11-16, dyslexia for the fucking win

i know he said 10-17
Jan 5 2011 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
sorry i just cant stand people telling me the fisheye lens i own and frequently use is not a fisheye. kind of annoying ya dig?
Jan 6 2011 1:03AM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
yeah no worries i get that haha i just made a mistake
Jan 6 2011 1:22AM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 185
canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye, very sharp and reasonably wide on a crop body.

canon 24-70 f2.8L, great all around lens, weather resistant, very sharp, and reasonably inexpensive if you find it used.

zeiss 50mm f1.4, no explination needed. especially for video.

canon 70-200 f/whatever you can afford, mandatory in any serious collection.
Jan 6 2011 8:28PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
You can't really get a good super-wide for cheaper than the tokina. It performs about as good as you are going to get without sacrificing quality, as super-wides aren't easy to make.

I agree with the rokinon suggestion. It's a wonderful little fisheye. I've played with it, and it performs really really well for being worth 300$ brand new. It's really sharp, doesn't have much in the way of CA - so little it will probably not even be noticeable when you are filming. It's just one of those lucky mistakes.
Jan 6 2011 8:53PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)