An Appropriate Lens Set foe EOS 7D

[sjs50]

Hi people,

I am in the UTTER novice category so please excuse all the baggage that come with that

For many years I used non-DSLR cameras, automatic, off and on when my business would allow me, till a few months back. Now I am retired and able to indulge myself.I got my first DSLT this February and after much deliberation bought the 17-55 f 2.8 is my first lens (along with a 50mm 1.8 prime). I went travelling to Europe for a couple of months immediately thereafter and my lens served the purpose fairly well.

My main interest is traveling (meaning landscapes, monuments - inside and outside), human interest photography (meaning people), and nature (meaning flora and fauna). I must add here that of all these the wildlife bit is the one I am likely to use the least often although when I do, I would not like to be left 'high and dry' for want of an appropriate lens.

So I need to decide the best range of lenses to help me cover most situations. Being a complete amateur, I understand that I could compromise a bit but being able to afford a bit more I would be disappointed if I did not buy the best only because it was costlier. So the only reason for me to strike a compromise would be the trouble of carrying, as well as constantly changing, between a large number of lenses.

So I am in the need for advise on the lenses I should get.

To my 17-55 I have just added a 10-22 F3.5-4.5 which should arrive today. Since traveling is one of my major occupations I thought I needed a really good wide angle. I relied on people like you on the net to make this choice too. This also became my second lens purchase since I felt I could have done more inside those Italian Cathedrals if I had a zoom although 17-55 dod a very decent job.

My next two lenses need to be a macro (only because I love all those great shots of insects ) and a lens to cover longer focal length. I have zeroed in on the 100mm f 2.8 macro and the 70-200 f 2.8 (the IS II version) but I need a confirmation that this is a good choice.

So here is my list of questions.

1. Does the 100mm macro, the 10-22 wide angle, the 17-55 and the 70-200 (perhaps with a 1.4 extender) cover my needs adequately as a set or do you think I could have fewer lenses to serve my purpose OR that I SHOULD add more lenses ?

2. For the purposes I need them, could I make better choices ?

3. Specifically for the wildlife usage should be satisfied with a 200 plus an extender? If yes, does a 2x extender also suggest itself to help me increase the 'range' because I get mixed opinions on this from whatever I read on the net?

4. Which lens would you advise for which purpose from the set you recommend?

Just an aside. The 70-200 (IS II USM) is almost universally rated as one of the finest lenses from Canon and it does appear to cover so much of what I would want to use my camera for that one is most determined to acquire it. The only question that remains then is if I was to add another lens for wildlife, I would be having two long and heavy lenses to tug around. In the last couple of days, I have read quite a bit said in favour of the 100-400 from Canon. It would appear to offer an acceptable compromise. What do you think?

PS : Its possible that there is an existing thread where I could have posted this but not able to locate one I thought let my first post on DPS also be my first thread

[Cardiiiii]

10-22 for landscape
17-55 for low light/night
24-105 for general purpose
70-300 for wildlife or
100-400 for wildlife if you're serious

And Jesus you have money to burn!

[inkista]

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is more of a general-purpose lens than a wildlife lens. With wildlife, typically you want more reach, because you can't get that close. A 70-200 is more for portraiture, event shooting, or zoo shooting. Most people recommend a 300mm at least for wildlife, and a 400mm lens (minimum) for birding.

For the quality and pricepoints you're looking at, the 100-400L IS USM, or the 300 f/4L IS USM are probably the two lenses you might want to consider. The 300 f/4 is going to be faster, and used with a 1.4x teleconverter can also get you to 400mm for those times you need the extra reach. The 70-300 IS USM is a good-general purpose lens, but it's not even close to being an L in terms of color/contrast. It is, however, considerably smaller and lighter and black, not white, and may be worthy of consideration for those reasons alone, depending on your tolerance for hauling weight with you, and how much you plan to use the lens. DO NOT consider the 70-300 DO lens--it's optically weak (unlike the 400mm f/4L DO), and was designed primarily to be small and compact--but the pricetag is ridiculous for the image quality you get.

Not sure the 24-105 is for you, if you like the wide angle, and not the reach. Also, at f/4, it's something of a compromise lens. Great for travel, as it's smaller and lighter with a larger zoom range than the 24-70L f/2.8, but not so great for available light.

Personally, I think waiting to see what you need before you buy it is a good idea, rather than just going by what someone on a board thinks you ought to have.

The only thing I think you're missing is a fast prime for portraiture. Maybe just throwing $100 at an EF 50mm f/1.8 for those times you want to travel really small and light might be worth it.

To me, your love of wide angle and subject matter suggests that you may also want to contemplate the tradeoffs of a 7D vs. a 5DMKII.