Thanks for all the posts.

I have 3 weeks to think about what to start with. I will be adding to the collection of lenses as I figure out what I'm doing.

Jon,

I'm not sure I agree with you about the usefulness of the 100mm f2.8 macro on a 7D. Don't forget it ends up being about a 160mm f2.8 lens. In my experience I find a 180mm or 200mm equivalent and a 85 or 100mm equivalent to be more usable focal lengths, these were the old photographic standards for good reason.

Reading down this thread it seems a lot of people are recommending lenses for the 7D based on how they work on the 5DmkII. With the crop factor the whole equation changes and so do my recommendations.

Dan

Good point, Dan. Still, a macro would be useful. And the 100mm would give a longer lens, even if it is a tweener, between the typical lengths. Shorter macros are worth considering. I would avoid the 180mm macro though. That would be too big a jump.

And what about Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II LD?
The users reviews are excelent and it`s compatible with APS-c.
Ron

You probably saw this:
FM Reviews - AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

I would suggest testing if its adequately sharp wide open through the focal length range. It sounds good.

I use extension tubes on the 135/2 for macros. Works great for occasional shots. The 135/2 is a great lens and has an extra stop. It's as close as one can get to the supertele look without spending the big bucks.
But it is a pretty specialized lens. On a 1.6 crop the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 might be a better longish fast prime to start. Half the price and a bit faster.

Ron, always found the Tamron's had slightly rougher and noiser manual focus than the Canons, Nikons, Sigmas or Tokinas. Not much of an issue with stills but a real PITA for video. Would definately check it out before buying, I think given the alternatives I wouldn't bother with it. I have the Tamron 28-300 VC lens and which had OK manual focus, but it could be a lot better.

Lenses for video use have other criteria than what you see in the average lens review, worth bearing in mind when searching for them. Manual focus ability and excessive lens breathing are the most obvious factors, flare handling is also more important for video than stills.

Dan

On the flare handling, stills and video are certainly different.

On photos, I want flare minimized, so that it doesn't lower the contrast of the shot. Because it's stationary, I can't necessarily tell what is flare and what isn't.

On video, if I move the camera, the flare comes and goes. That lets me distinguish the flare from the image.

I think for video, we want pretty flare - nice circles with each reflection in a nice line. For photos, we want flare minimized.

Anyway, that's my theory. As to how the above lenses handle flare, I have no idea!

Thank for your advice, Dan.
Unfortunately I probably won`t be able to test the zoom lens.
I can`t find better option (17-50 / 2.8) for the same price to use with my future 7D.
The main use will be narrative / fiction.
Best wishes
Ron

The nice thing about narrative/fiction is that it's not too hard to provide enough light for an f/2.8 lens. While it's nice to be able to film in natural light or with a few candles, one to three moderate lights will easily get your images out of the noise. In fact, you'll probably want some silks to keep from over lighting.

You wouldn't want to run every f/2.8 lens wide open, but from the reviews I've read, falloff and soft corners aren't too bad with this lens.

On paper, the EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 IS looks like a great lens for narrative use on the 7D. Let us know how you like it.