[Yaniv]

Its time to start gather my ultimate set of lenses,

I shot mainly wildlife (long focal length) but I also do studio, landscape and macro

(or in other words, all of all).



I was thinking about :

Canon 10-22

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS

Canon 180mm Macro

Canon 100-400 IS





Which lenses will you choose (non unlimited budget but a generous one) for an APS-C (Canon 7D) ?





Thanks !

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Its time to start gather my ultimate set of lenses,

I shot mainly wildlife (long focal length) but I also do studio, landscape and macro

(or in other words, all of all).



I was thinking about :

Canon 10-22

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS

Canon 180mm Macro

Canon 100-400 IS





Which lenses will you choose (non unlimited budget but a generous one) for an APS-C (Canon 7D) ?





Thanks !

[/quote]

All those are fine lenses in their own right. But "ultimate" is personal.

I would exchange the 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 with the new Sigma 8-16mm, I think.

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is a very nice lens, I could see myself go for that one.

I would get the 70-200 f4 L IS USM myself, as it is half the weight of the f2.8 lens.

The Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM macro, yes, great lens.

100-400mm, yes, but it is push-pull with AF, so be sure you are ok with that. Otherwise there are one or two XXX-500mm lenses from Sigma that are of interest too. And the non-stabilized Canon 400mm f5.6 L USM.



I would want some primes though. Like the 24mm f1.4 L USM II, 200mm f2.8 L USM, 35mm f2 (as "standard" prime), 85mm f1.8 USM and Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 pancake.



So my list (for APS-C) would look like this:

Sigma 8-16mm DC

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM

Sigma 50-500mm OS

Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II

Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II

Canon EF 35mm f2

Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM

Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM maco

Canon EF 200mm L USM

Canon 12mm + 25mm extension tube



Canon EF 24

[Rainer]

For landscape with the 7D, the 10-22 is a nice choice.



For studio, the 17-55 and the 70-200 both with f/2.8 and IS seems overkill. Light is well

controled in the studio and same applies to the background. I would opt for a 24-105/4L here.



Macro ... I would prefere the new 100L IS Macro over the 180L. 180mm is quite long on the 7D.



Wildlife ... depends on what you do. the 100-400 can be a good and quite flexible choice. But it can

also be too short.



Just my 2cts ... Rainer

[Yaniv]

Thanks for your thoughts both,

I already have the 50-500 by Sigma and I really don't like it compared to results that I see from the Canon 100-400.



Even when stopping down to F11 I still don't get the same sharpness and contrast.



I also have the Sigma 105mm

It perform well but tend to break a lot... now I have to deal with the aperture blades which stopped function

and are stock some where around F7.1 (assuming).



This is another reason why I want to replace my lenses to an all Canon.





Why is the Sigma 8-16 is preferred on the Canon 10-22 ?

The wide side ?





And last but not least,

I'm thinking about the 180mm Macro as I love to photograph insects

probably my ring flash won't be anymore of tool here because of the length from the object

but I'm taking it in consideration.

[Guest]

[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Its time to start gather my ultimate set of lenses,

I shot mainly wildlife (long focal length) but I also do studio, landscape and macro

(or in other words, all of all).



I was thinking about :

Canon 10-22

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS

Canon 180mm Macro

Canon 100-400 IS





Which lenses will you choose (non unlimited budget but a generous one) for an APS-C (Canon 7D) ?





Thanks !

[/quote]



Wildlife, studio, landscape and macro is hardly all of all. There's also sports, photojournalism, paparazzi-ing, candid, weddings, architecture, ...



You may consider a large-aperture lens, like the 85mm f/1.2 or 135 f/2, just for the extra background blur. I saw the results of a modelling class held by Canon Denmark, none of the pictures were with smaller apertures than f/2! Also, for wildlife in particular, you may want to consider a long prime instead of the 100-400. I also agree with getting the Sigma 8-16 for wide-angle.



Or, if you're really crazy, get the SigZooka (200-500 f/2.8). It requires a very solid tripod, and you probably don't want to schlep it far, but damn. Even comes with a 2x converter



-Lars

[popo]

I have a 7D as main camera, and my main focus was wildlife, but featuring to a lesser degree bug macro, still life, and landscapes.



What I've settled on for wildlife so far is:



EF-S 15-85: the range is more useful for wildlife than the aperture of the 17-55.

EF 100-400L: The zoom I use most... fast acting allowing you to react, but still there is a desire for more... My two lens, two body setup would be this and the 15-85.

Sigma 150mm macro, with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Very versatile while offering enough general magnification and working distance. With bug macro, you can never have too much working distance. Longer is better. However I'm wondering if I should get the Canon IS to possibly help with natural light macro.



To be added: even longer telephoto. 400 is kinda ok but not terribly long. Next on my shopping list will be a 300/2.8. Strap a teleconverter on it for even more potential.

[wim]

For APS-C, I would choose:



Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom

Tokina 11-16 F/2.8

EF-S 15-85 IS

TS-E 17L

TS-E 24L II

TS-E 45

TS-E 90

24L

50L

EF-S 60 Macro

MP-E 65

85L II

135L

100-400L

Extender II 1.4X

Kenko Pro 1.4X converter

Both Canon extension tubes

Kenko extension tube set

(I want many extension tubes)



For FF leave out the EF-S and Tokina lenses, and add:

200 F/2L IS



If I had any money left after that:

300 F/2.8L

Extender II 2.0X



Not very unlimited, if you don't mind too much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[allanmb]

I really like my setup:



Sigma 10-20mm

Canon 17-55 IS

Sigma 150mm macro

Canon 400mm f/5.6L



I also have the Sigma 28/1.8 for when I want wide low dof shots, and the Sigma 100-300 which is great for travelling, the 100-300 and 17-55 is all I take when travelling light...



If I were buying again, I would consider the Tokina 11-16 or the new Sigma 8-16 - the rest I would buy again.



Allan

[Yakim]

[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

I was thinking about :

Canon 10-22[/quote]



I have it and love it. What I most admire in it is its absolute flare resistance. It is very important feature in a UWA lens as it's very difficult to avoid the sun without a significant change in the composition. Also, my country is very sunny so this feature is extra important for me.



[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS[/quote]



Again, I have it and love it. Put a gun to my head and force me to live with only one lens and this will be it. I even sold 35/1.4L and Sigmalux (50/1.4) as they became redundant by it.



[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS[/quote]



I had it and loved it but eventually sold it as I shoot very little sports.



[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Canon 180mm Macro[/quote]



Superb lens, but the equivalent Tamron is just as good, is slightly lighter and significantly cheaper. If my macro subjects were insects I'd certainly choose the Tamron 180/3.5.



[quote name='Yaniv' date='17 July 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1279355652' post='1056']

Canon 100-400 IS[/quote]



Again, a superb lens for wildlife but personally, I didn't like the push-pull mechanism. A thought: If you get the 70-200/2.8 IS II and 2X TC, I'm not at all sure you'll need this one.

[popo]

If you need to change length fast and still track accurately I don't think you can beat the push-pull. My worry is that a 100-400 mk2 as and when it eventually happens wont remain push-pull. For such a lens, there is potentially a lot of glass to move, and that takes more force than on smaller lenses... the twisting motion could be more challenging unless they keep the moving elements to an absolute minimum.