jjz2

Well not many of us can stick with one lens...general purpose is vague. I like pretty much everything in the 16-200 equivalent range. I also like primes. I would just stop worrying about it, ...

Depends how you shoot really, 7d is a great camera IQ wise but technology wise it is in the past. For me, it's 2018 and "I just can't" without WiFi in a camera. I often want to just share a few ...

If you are planning to stick with your current body and pushed for money, I'd go with the 35 f2 is or a 30 1.4... Newer body like 80d, maybe consider the 24 2.8... The problem is the ISO ...

This really...really...really...one more time... really....depends on you. I personally wouldn't want the 24-105, that's not near wide enough IMO... For me I shot with the 15-85 for about half a ...

Yeah I mostly lurk in here but see that in these forums often... same with SL1/SL2 bodies... yeah that's part of the point, but it's an OPTION. A bigger body can never truly be compact no matter ...

1995. Sorry couldn't resist. Most Canon lenses were FD mount for most of the 80s. EF and USM technology came in 1987. I don't take much consideration into quality on when a lens was made, maybe in ...

If this is a concern with you...i.e. You want to completely nuke a background you should skip the 50 also and jump to the 85 1.8 or it's bigger brother the 100 f2, esp if you are talking outdoor ...

It helps but your results will be better with some kind of gimbal like a Glidecam, though tons of cheaper ones. Esp if you are moving around. Depends how professional you want it to look though... ...

Canon doesn't have it but Tamron does, and comes in 45, 85. Never used them...but if you want those features, you can have them.

I'm not saying it is why, but one of the reasons Nikon might have been compelled to come out with this, is that it's lower range bodies won't even AutoFocus with it's older primes that were available.

The 35 f2 IS, but it's a lot more money. Yes the 28 needs stopping down some before sharpening up if shooting a scene, if you are shooting a short portrait though, the corners won't matter so much.

In your case I would want the 24-70 2.8, either version. If you are doing weddings you have more reason to want to isolate your subjects and prone to shooting in areas without good light sources. ...

I'd honestly rather have the 10-18 over 18-55 for my travel purposes. Wouldn't go without it. 18 is not near wide enough for me esp in dense cities or nature, which is basically all of my travel. ...

Also consider the older Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX DC HSM lens. They can be had quite cheap, and would match quite nicely in size/weight with the 7d if on a budget...

It is a nice lens... but I found it just wasn't FAST enough for me in practice, despite being nice and compact (and cheap). I need the 1.8 or f2 for my walk around purposes, esp on a cropper... ...

In this case I'd go with logic. To me, pretty much all modern dslrs are just a tool to get a certain "outcome" and will be upgraded in time much like a phone or laptop. I basically view them as ...

Definitely not, the 6d has better AF than the 5d classic AND the 5d mark ii, not to mention better low light performance.

Not sure if you'll ever see an update to this lens. But it is a good lens, and they can be had cheap. This lens came out at a time where the market for people buying this lens couldn't "go full ...

This. Esp if you like buying new/need warranties etc. There isn't something THAT compelling to move to a 6d2 for me. I'm mostly perfectly happy and I don't see anything "game changing" on the 6d2. ...

Black rapid strap if you don't have one. This is only a lens I would borrow or rent though. Like you, this isn't really a lens I enjoy carrying around, but if you need it, you need it... I use ...