Video mostly lens?
 

If buying the new 7D or the Mark2 body, for the purposes of mostly video, which 2 or 3 lenses would be YOUR choice that you have now? Understanding that the 7D can't take full advantage of fullframe glass, would there be any reason to avoid certain more expensive lenses for cheaper glass?

2 or 3 lenses... Zeiss Contax mount 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, with AF confirm adapters would be a good start.

Let's say I pre-ordered a 7D body and have 2000USD to work with?

I think it depends on what kind of work you shoot, if you have time to change lens then yeah prime is nice, for my line of work, I need low light and flexible so I'm getting the Canon17-55IS 2.8 first, then if I think I can live with shooting video with a still camera (-: and overcome all of its shortcoming, 12minutes max per clip, no articulated lcd, alliasing, then I will get a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for the wide range and the Canon 70-200IS 2.8 for the long range.

I'm new to video (Not photography) and love what I see as far as walk around capturing the city. I live in Japan where everywhere you turn something interesting is happening.

I'd also like to start doing some bridal work as far as sitting couples down for some one on one time or to create some sort of banquet ceremony video (10 minutes) to enjoy will waiting OR at the end. Starting with friends and possibly working my way up.

Other than that...just JAPAN shots

If money is tight, the 28-135 IS lens that is part of the kit is not a bad deal, but it's not wide enough for me. I have a Tamron 17-35 on my 20D which I could use on the 7D. If you do lots of hand held work, you probably want a lens with IS, which the kit lens has. I'm wondering if a person could put a decent wide angle adapter on that lens for wider angle shots. I know life would be much better with the pricier and faster lenses, but you go with what you can afford. I have that cheap f1.8 50mm which feels like a toy but is surprisingly good under most conditions, so cheap isn't always bad.

I love my 50mm 1.8 for stills. Great lens. Nikkor glass though.
In a perfect world I'd like a nice prime 1.4, a wide-angle that is fast and a walk around zoom that is fast.

I have all my ancient pre-AI Nikkors...24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, 135mm and 200mm. I would probably have bought an adapter and gone with the 5DMKII if it did 24p.

Jason,

Tough ask, moderate budget, for video only, 7D only, I'd go for a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Canon 70-200 f4L IS (or f2.8 version if you need or can afford it), and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (or Canon 35mm f1.4L or a Canon 50mm f1.2L if funds allow). That would be my personal kit. If you could add an extra lens then I would get a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS as well.

Dan

I am planning to get the Canon 17-55 2.8IS and the Canon 28 1.8 (as a slightly wider "normal" lens once the crop is factored in) and probably a Canon 50 1.4. I will then see how that goes and work from there. I have some Nikons that I used with my Letus (notably a 50 1.4, 28 2.0, 85 1.4 and 135 2.0) which I will use but I want the Canon lenses for the AF capability for stills shooting. I am going to hold off on the 70-200 for a bit.
Personally (and based on ZERO hands on experience) I think that for video the L series lenses (specifically the 50 1.2, and 85 1.2) are probably overkill. The 1.4 (50) and 1.8 (85) are such highly rated lenses (check out Ken Rockwell's reviews) and I am not sure that in video mode these lenses would be noticeably different to their higher priced L-versions. I think they become more key for stills work.

My two cents.

The Tokina 11-16mm is a yes, for sure.
Why the 70-200 f4L IS?? Just out of curiosity? (For stills I have my D700 and a 70-200 VR...wonderful glass)
The Sigma was something I was looking at but not sure. Would the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM be better, worse, the same?
And what about the 100mm f/2.8 macro?

How much is that Tokina?

B+H has the Tokina for 599 (out of stock though). Just looked it up. Might be a good buy.

It's 450 here in Japan and in stock.

Jason,

I really like the 70-200 f4L IS, the IS is a very useful thing to have when shooting on a shoulder rig with a long lens. The IS in the f4 lens is about as good as it gets and actually better than the IS in the f2.8 version in my experience. Its also light enough and small enough to carry most of the time, unlike the f2.8. The ideal combo for me would be a 70-200 f4IS and a 135mm f2L, I'd take that over a 70-200 f2.8 IS, but thats me :)

100mm macro, old, new and soon to released IS versions are all stellar IMHO, but not as versatile if you want a 3 lens kit.

I also have a D700, had a 70-200 f2.8VR but actually prefer the 80-200 f2.8 AFS and 80-200 f2.8 AFD as well (don't ask, need to sell one) I'm probably going to pick up the 70-200 VR II when its available. You could use the 70-200 f2.8 VR on the 7D if you get a 16-9.net adapter, would save some cash but not as easy to use as the Canon and no IS.

I don't rate the Canon 28mm f1.8, had 2 and was never really happy with it. I'd take a close look at the Sigma instead, I'd say it was a much sharper lens wide open.

Dan