Torn between lenses...
 

So I am definitely getting myself a 7D, but so very torn about lenses. I feel like I should just go ahead and order the camera with the stock lense (28-135) for general purpose. But also debating on another lens for a closer feel. I really would love the 35mm f/1.4 but $1300 is a junk of change. The 17-55 f/2.8 seems like the option for now, but for $1000, I feel like I could buy 2 Tamron or Sigma lenses for that price. Of course Canon is known to make better lenses, the IS is also an incredible feature. But there has to be a less expensive solution.

Any wedding cinematographers out there shooting with non-canon lenses? and how well do they work on monopods?

The 35mm lens would be great to have, but I found my old Nikkor 24mm f2.8 does a good job, is easy to focus and that bit extra wide angle is very useful. It holds focus very well because it is wide angle and the depth of field carries focus well. The prime Nikkor lens is far sharper than the kit lens for about the same money, yet a lot faster at f2.8. I also have the Canon 50mm f1.4 and that is a fantastic lens for the money, with a nice wide focusing ring.

You mention two lenses but they could not be more far apart - so first you need to decide what you are shooting - the genre, the location and lighting are all factors.
For prepped shots and a location that you can visit beforehand then primes are fine - unless you have a complete set of primes and time to change lenses, then you can get away without seeing the location. For doc type filming then zoom's are a huge advantage. To be able to shoot an interview quickly is a plus for this work.
You mention weddings. I don't shoot weddings but I would think most pro's use zooms and maybe a fixed lens for the ceremony - or inside the church. The fixed will give you better low-light capability than a zoom. At any rate if you are being paid to shoot a wedding, your lenses should be the best there is. You should not be looking to save money on lenses here - fixed 2.8 min aperture and L series glass for sure. You should not use cheaper variable aperture lenses like the stock lens for a wedding. On a monopod you will need IS lenses anyhow .... I am guessing many wedding shooters use a 70-200 F2.8 for close-ups and ceremonies, so they are not intruding too much. For general scenes then the 17-55 is a good choice. Also the cheapo 50mm 1.8 is great for portrait stuff. The only non-canon L lens I use is the Tokina 11-16 2.8.

I sell my films as an independent - so I can use a $100 lens and be damned. But if someone is paying you to shoot the biggest day of their lives, then at least show up with a lens you can be proud of - even if you can only afford one!

The f2.8 24-70 L is a really good range for the 7D. You'd probably still need a wide angle, but this one would get you through most things, I think.

my 2c?
 

For me, the 17-55 is the best thing about the 7d. I LOVE this lens. 2.8 is about as narrow a DOF as you can handle for run n gun, but its still a lot of light. The lens is sharp and the colors are nice and the IS is magic.

I've used the kit lenses and other cheap canon glass and was rather disappointed in the camera. Then i got the 17-55 and realized i'd been disappointed in the lenses instead.

This is almost all the 17-55 and the 70-200... a few intermittent shots on the 50 1.8 and the 18-55 kit lens on the merlin: YouTube - Interactive zombie movie adventure - DELIVER ME TO HELL - REAL ZOMBIES ATTACK

For shooting in the dark, a 1.2 is pretty sweet, but you kinda need to have the "fishing for focus" aesthetic going for it to work on live event coverage.

thems my 2c. On the odd occasion where i need to blur the crap out of the background, i'm still hunting for the dream prime. I tried out the 85 1.2 II. Dammn, thats a lovely lens, but its SO long on the 7d.

Thanks you guys. I think I may just leap myself into this Tamron for right now.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 w/VC

Has great reviews for video recording. Any thoughts?

The Tamron is a good sharp lens, but the focus throw is even shorter than the Canon lenses. Once you get accustomed to it, you can live with it; but a follow focus system would make it a lot nicer. There's also a Tokina 16-50 f2.8, no stabilizer. It feels a little heavier and more solid than the Tamron and has a better focus ring, but I think the Tamron is sharper, especially at the limits.

Thanks Bill. Of course in the long run I would really want the Canon models for my camera. I just cannot afford it right now. But will for sure be purchasing them when money starts coming in. For right now it looks the Tamron lens might just work for me. The stabilization is very important as well. and the Tamron offers it.

is the IS comparable?
 

I"m not a big brand-loyalty guy or anything, but the IS on the canon's has felt smooth. I've only tried out one IS tamron lens, and i don't remember any specs about it, but it seemed to "jerk" at the end of a fast motion as it corrected back to center. The canons do something smoother.

It might have been an old or crappy version of the tamron. Has anybody tried any side by sides of the IS systems? Are all IS created equal?

Were you using the lens on a tripod? With a traditional video camera you can't use IS when on a tripod or Steadicam because you get that. I don't know if the same thing applies to still lenses or not, but it seems logical to me that it would.

I had the Tamron 28-75 for my 7D that I used for shooting interviews. Sold it with the camera when I got the 5D. It was a good sharp lens and I felt it was better than the non-L Canon lenses. I was like you, Kristian, in that I didn't want to put too much money into the system when I first got it. It was supposed to be a backup camera for my XH A1. But after my first shoot, the 7D became the primary camera and the XH A1 became the backup. For lots of the work I do I needed wider angle high quality lenses, which is why I got the 5D, nothing wrong with the 7D at all. In fact there are some things about it I like better than the 5D.

There's one Tamron lens I got for the 7D that I kept for the 5D. It's their now discontinued 17-35. It's f2.8 at the wide end but stops down at longer focal lengths. It's a big, solid well built lens with a pretty good focus ring. No IS, but at 17mm with a shoulder mount it's easy to hand hold steady. If you see one of these lenses on eBay, I'd recommend it. Problem is, I noticed last time I looked that they now want more for them than I paid new. Some retail stores still had a few, but only the high priced local places.

Buy IS on every lens that you can. The 17-55mm Canon will be your BEST friend. You can always sell it to me if you don't like it.

I used a 30mm Sigma last night. The footage gets too jittery or shaky looking if it's not a tripod or glidecam. Also, my second videographer used a 70-200mm non-IS canon on a $1300 Miller tripod and every time he had to focus the footage shaked. You need IS. Get the Canon.

I guess there's at least 2 sides to every issue. I have never used IS. Most people comment on how steady my hand held shots are. I put my money on L zooms and the fastest manual focus Nikon primes I could find.

I second that, 17-55mm and 70-200mm both IS, both my favorite ones