Topic: Canon EOS 7D with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit

Been thinking of a new camera, how does this sound for £1k?

Then I will need some more glass, any tips please?

The Price of £1K is one of the better ones I have seen , There is a great deal of difference in the prices for this combination as I have been looking at the bodies for myself .
As regards lenses it really depends on what you want to take pictures of . Long range zooms for shows and/or wildlife , wide angle for landscapes , macros for close up work it is and can be quite a long list until you narrow down your potential interests .

Shane .

If you're thinking of buying more lenses soon I would invest in a better walk around lens, the 18-55 is not really upto the 7d's capabilities. I use the 15-85 I know it costs a lot more but the results are worth it. The other lens I use most is the 70-200 F4 L these two cover much of what I need most of the time .
The 7d also often gets packaged with 18-135 which may be a better deal .
The trouble with buying cameras in the 7d bracket is you then spend an arm and a leg on lenses as I've found.  My other lenses came with an "L" on them with the appropriate dent in the wallet.

The 7d is a great camera and needs decent glass to get the best out of it.

Rob

Thank you both for your comments.

Shane L, when I had a look round the cost of a body only or this one with a lens, was only £30 difference.

trebor, know what you are saying and agree. I have ordered a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens to tide me over, while I get used to the camera and save up for;

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens (White)

Then not sure what my next one would be, but would like it to be a 'L'

The 55-250 is a good choice, all the reviews I have seen make this one of the better lenses and has a good range.

At £30 you might as well get the 18-55 as you could sell it for more than that anyway.

Have fun with the camera. 

Nothing at all wrong with the 7D, its a good camera. The standard Kit lens is not too bad, there really isnt such a thing as a poor lens nowadays in terms of sharpness. All lenses are so very close in terms of sharpness when stopped down at thier best....you really have to look very closely indeed to spot the deifferences. The differences between kit, travel and professional lenses is the maximum apertures, Sharpness wide open and fully stopped down, control of vignetting, colour reproduction, CA etc.

A very good travel lens is actually in the Tamron 28-300mm VC Di AF. Had very good reviews, and it has won many industry design awards... although anything with a "L" designation is going to offer you the best performance....at a serious price. Unless you are a serious boating tog or something, i dont think the difference in price between it and the 28-300 "L" is worth it.

Go to a decent camera shop and ask to try one out, see what you think.

I can't quite see a marketplace for the 70-300L, it's within a few quid of the 100-400 IS L, has the same maximum aperture, isn't any better optically and doesn't have the additional range... I'd seriously look at the 100-400 at the same time you explore the 70-300 (see I read the post Rich 70 not 28!)

The 7D is an excellent body, I'd like one as a second body to remain permanently attached to my 100-400 for sports and wildlife.

I've seen a lot of very good images taken with an 18-55 and as a short term fill in then I'm sure it'll do fine.

Oh, i wasnt trying to say a 28-300 was a drirect replacement of a 70-300 or especially the 100-400...which its not. But if you are looking for a travel lens with a wide range, then it is a cracker...

I would go for the 100-400 every day over the 70-300. 30mm at the close end is a couple of steps backwards, but you gain 100mm at the long end which is precious and the 100-400 is a known fantastic bit of kit. Totally agree with you there.

Hi Firefox,

I don't rate the 18-55mm lens very highly. It was the kit lens on my first DSLR - the 450D. When I went to Japan & borrowed my son's 17-85mm lens I realised how poor the quality of the 18-55 mm lens was. It didn't give particularly sharp pictures. Another kit lens to avoid, too, is the 28-135mm lens. That came with the 50D. I had a choice between that & the 18-200 mm lens - I made the wrong choice because later on I bought an 18-200mm lens as a walkabout lens for my 7D. For its price its very good & gives very good quality pictures.

As for bigger, better quality zoom lenses - the 100-400mm L lens is superb. Not that keen on the 28-300mm lens. I nearly bought one a couple of years ago, but wasn't 100% happy with either the price or the quality. Which is why I bought the 18-200mm lens, in my view its as good if not slightly better than the 28-300mm. The 18-200mm is a lot lighter & less cumbersome, which makes it an ideal walkabout lens, than the 28-300mm.

As for another lens to think about - a wide angle. I'm think about (yes, I know I was think about this lens last year ) the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM II. This lens got a superb write up in Digital Photography.

TTFN,
Neil

Im pretty sure Neilly is talking about the Canon 28-300L which is big bucks. Used quite a lot by yaughting togs to minimise equipment carried in bags.

I am talking about the recently brought out Tamron lens which has won quite a few awards. Is it a better travel lens than the Canon 18-200? Dont know, the 18-200 is a great lens....except the focus ring moves when you autofucus which is a bit of a pain, but once you get used to that, optically its a good un'. Only a direct play with the two lenses would determine the better option.

You will always get better lenses by buying more lenses with less zoom. A 24-70 will  always be optically better than 18-200 , as will a 70-200. But travelling around often demands compromises in how much weight you take.

In canon terms, an "L" lens will normally always be optically superior to a non "L" lens (There are a couple of exceptions where a real budget plastic lens is optically fantastic, the all plastic cheapo Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II being a good example of such a major performer for next to no money.)

Im pretty sure Neilly is talking about the Canon 28-300L which is big bucks. Used quite a lot by yaughting togs to minimise equipment carried in bags.

Yes, Rich, I was - didn't know Tamron did a 28-300 mil, too.

TTFN,
Neil

I have seen the Canon 28-300 in the flesh, its a big beastie for a "Travel Lens". I did wonder though, its an "L" so i would be interested to have a play with one to find out if its as good as i would hope it would be for an "L". Massive zoom ranges tend to detract from outright performance...so im interested in seeing how it fairs. If i went the Canon route, i might even pick one up for hols and general walkaround...except like i said, its pretty big lump to hang off your neck

I am also waiting on the release of the 5DMkIII. If they up the AF speed and improve on the already acceptable ISO, then its a foregone conclusion for me. The thing that confuses me is that Nikon are discontinuing the D700, the D800 ISO performance isnt really up to weddings in the modern environment of non flash use...if Canon up the ISO on the 5D, then Nikon are commiting wedding tog suicide

As for another lens to think about - a wide angle. I'm think about (yes, I know I was think about this lens last year ) the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM II. This lens got a superb write up in Digital Photography.

TTFN,
Neil

Neil, I've got th e 12-24. It's a pretty impressive lens but it has some odd quirks. I don't believe it's as good optically as the 10-20 that I used on the cropped body but I guess the semi crop of the 1D is also incompatible with the 10-20. As long as you don't bring too much foreground in very close into the corners of the frame the 12-24 is capable of good performance. 12mm is amazingly wide on my FF 5D and a number of my best shots have been taken with it.

I had the choice between it and the 17-40L and if I could do it again I'd probably choose the 17-40 just for the image quality. That said I am after a 16-35 II next but I will keep the 12-24 as 12mm is great for those occasions when 16 or 17mm just aren't quite wide enough.

Thinking a bit deeper and the semi crop ought to cut out the worst of the issues in the corners.

If you happen to pop over this way you're welcome to try my one out Neil.

Its a Sigma, so you could get a spanker, or a duffer... yes you just send them back untill you get the spanker...but im just warning you to make sure you test it out fully, quickly so that you can send it back early if its a friday special. I have had three Siggies, two were omg brilliant, one not so much

When you get a good one you hang on to it

Barrys right, the semi crop might kick in your favour...best to try one out in the shop and see