I'm not looking to buy a set of primes right now - one or two good zoom lenses should do the trick for now. The one that comes packaged with the cam looks good, but having something a bit wider and faster might be cool, maybe a 17–55mm 2.8 IS? Should I just go for the body alone and pick up one of these babies on the side?

I'm on the same boat right now.

Since i don't have the budget to go for the L series, i'll probably go with the tamron 17-50 because of the crop factor. it will translate to 28-80.
i would like to believe this is the "one and only" choice on a budget.

the canon 70-200 F4 is my main second choice to cover from 112-320mm.

Check out the tamron, i think it's a beautiful alternative on the WIDE section to cover from 28mm at least.

If you wanna go safe, go for the EF 17-40 F/4.

Hope that helps.

Do you have a link to the Tamron and are there any major differences between it and the Canon?

I use tamron on D40 and it is great, if you go into details, cannon is of course better, but for video on 7D, i don't think there will be much difference. Tamron is very sharp on f2.8. I also have canon 70-200 F4L and fixed canon 85/1.8 but mainly i use tamron and for video, i would use it even more. I am also waiting for 7D body, but not imediately, i want to see more tests. My glass is already here and waiting.

Tamron has a new 17-50. Same lens but with IS, which they call VC, for vibration control. Of course it's more expensive, but still $300-$400 cheaper than the Canon equivalent. I have a Tamron 17-35, the one that's for full frame cameras. It's 2.8 at the wide end and sharp. No OIS. It's a heavy sucker.

Do you have a link to the Tamron and are there any major differences between it and the Canon?

Comparison between the 2: ( you be the judge )
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2)

Amazon reviews:
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/product-reviews/B000EXR0SI/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)

A Review on youtube:
YouTube - Tamron 17-50, f2.8, XR Di II Lens Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44eQVoLZWM)

The newspaper where I'm a photojournalist has a 16-35 2.8L that will be sweet and very useful until I get my 17-55 2.8 IS Canon (highest-priority lens for my 7D), and a 100-400 IS L-series that will spoil me for telephoto usage outdoors, but I think a key part of my kit will be my personal 70-200 2.8L -- faster and longer zoom for indoor and other low-light usage is harder/pricier to do, while you can get a good 17-? 2.8 like the Tamron zoom for much cheaper, though the non-constant aperture would get very old and frustrating.

My best overall zoom combo for the 7D:
17-55 IS 2.8 Canon + 70-200 IS 2.8L Canon, and add 30mm 1.4 Sigma, maybe 1.4x and 2x teleconveters ...

IF on smaller budget:
17-35 or 17-50 Tamron and 70-200 4L Canon, 50mm 1.8 Canon, cheaper 2x.

I will likely get a Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM and its sweet 13.8X zoom range for the brighter parts of my upcoming Thailand vacation -- I even hope that lens will be OK for occasional bright-condition pro usage, too, like weddings on a sunny day or anything being delivered in NTSC DVD or web form.

The upcoming wider 15-85mm Canon IS USM will be a tempting lens, too, and will almost certainly be nicer/sharper overall for stills than the 18-250.
And then Canon is also coming out with the seemingly cheapo 18-135 IS lens, but I think the Sigma 18-250 might be a tough comparison for it, especially as the Sigma is only a tiny bit pricier.

Good lens reviews:
FM Reviews - Main Index (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/)

The new Tamron 17-50 VC (vibration compensation) lens is 2.8 all the way. I'm not pimping Tamron, I like the Canon lenses better for the most part, but i think Tamron's a pretty good value for the money. This new lens was only available for the Nikon as of last week but they say the Canon will be on the market very soon. Probably by the time the 7D gets here.

A 15-85 would fit my needs perfectly. Wider is better for me, generally. Assuming I can get something that gives me a 2.8. I've become accustomed to shooting people in video with LED or fluorescent lights and normally shoot at f2.8 or even more open. I could live with 2.8 for most things.

The 15-85 Canon is a f/3.5-5.6, so I sure HOPE there's an EF-S lens that is a 15-55 2.8 constant coming someday. Or a maybe 12-35 EF-S??

I'm quite intrigued about what interesting higher-quality lens options Canon might have up its sleeves as video DLSRs get more serious and widely-used. I really want a fast prime wide :) ... and a sharp USM IS in the 12X to 20X range.

Full frame 5D,etc. shooters have the very nice option of the Canon 28-300mm L series -- I'm jealous!

i own the Canon 17-40 f4 L. In the comparison that Roberto posted the link to above, the Tamron looks considerably sharper than my Canon, but who knows with sample to sample variation? That said, I have been very happy with the Canon but if I was buying again today, I would take a good close look at the Tamron, it looks really sharp.

*Edit - Ahh, just noticed that this lens is for APS-C cameras, I shoot with the 5D MKII, nevermind. Still looks like a deal for 7D owners.

Dan

The 15-85 Canon is a f/3.5-5.6, so I sure HOPE there's an EF-S lens that is a 15-55 2.8 constant coming someday.

Doubtful, since there's already an EF-S 17-55/2.8.

Canon had a 28-70mm L 2.8 constant, then they later came out with the 24-70 version ... This is what might happen for a few nicer EF-S lenses just like their 15-85 is about to replace the 17-85.

Comparison between the 2: ( you be the judge )
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2)

Amazon reviews:
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/product-reviews/B000EXR0SI/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)

A Review on youtube:
YouTube - Tamron 17-50, f2.8, XR Di II Lens Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44eQVoLZWM)

Wow, seems the Tamron is actually better?

Here's a piece shot with Sigma 24-70 on a 5DII. A good reminder to me that glass is a minor part of the craft.

Model Campus on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/6690556)

Wow, seems the Tamron is actually better?
you can expect amazing quality built with canon.
canon is top notch construction.

Tamron feels more cheap and plastic. i've seen several people on youtube with comments about parts falling off from the lens, sudden breaks, etc.

it depends on how you treat your equipment of course

for me is just a godsend lens. I'm an extremely delicate person, very small hands and i treat my stuff like a little princess.

But if you wanna go the tamron route, just be kind with the lens, treat it carefully, don't go around playing with the zoom like a nuts, and have fun ;)

-----------------------------------------

Here's a piece shot with Sigma 24-70 on a 5DII. A good reminder to me that glass is a minor part of the craft.
Model Campus on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/6690556)
That sigma looks gorgeos. the only downside is the min lenght.
24 is like 38 at min on a 7D.... what a shame. looks beautiful



Hope to see some 7D work soon around here.


Peace

The tamron above does not feel cheap and plastic, but yes lots of tamrons do feel like that

I am VERY intrigued to see how a Sigma 18-250 (or the less interesting Canon 18-135) performs in good light and low ISOs for 1080HD versus my 16-25,70-200 2.8, and 100-400 L-series zooms, an compared to my 50mm 1.4.
For still shooting and high-res/big, the sharpness, etc. difference will be obvious and the high-end glass will be quite superior, but for video, I wonder ...

Will it make only relatively minor difference, to the point where there won't be much hesitation in putting the 13.8X zoom on the camera when there's enough light? I'll report back in this forum on that when I get my 7D and 18-250 :)

One big bummer, could even steer me away from getting the lens:
I've read the Sigma is a vari-focal design ... the focus changes as you zoom :( !

I wonder if the 18-135 Canon is, too?

I have 2 zooms:
sigma 24-70mm 2.8
sigma 50-150mm 2.8 DC (EF-S only)

and I will buy the canon 7d when it comes out and use it straight away for a project. I want to go wider than the 24 on my widest lens, and so now I'm thinking that I should for one of the following:

EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM

I'm kind of stuck about which one I should get. I'm leaning towards the sigma because for some of my locations the wider the better. Also I have some of the range of the canon covered by my other lenses (and at f/2.8).

The only thing I'm hesitant on is the IS on the canon lens. Do you think that at 15mm would the IS give me an extra stop to play with? I'm thinking that it wouldn't since the IS would only really allow me to slow the shutter speed down a bit, but with video that wouldnt really be a possibility would it? (1/60 would kind of be my wall wouldnt it)

Maybe sell the Sigma 24-70 and "make do" a sweet Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM, Brian? Then later on get a wider zoom or maybe there will be an affordable 1.6x crop specific super wide 2/2.8 prime someday in the not-so-distant future ... Probably is more like it, as the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would indicate. Late this year or possibly next year? Who knows ...

OK, so if you were on a budget, then maybe?

Sigma 30mm 1.4
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (the new VC version due soon)
Sigma 70-200 2.8

What say you?

And if you wanted to build up then maybe go:-

1-Tamron 17-50 2.8 (the new VC version due soon)
2-Sigma 70-200 2.8
3-Tokina 11-16 2.8
4-Sigma 30mm 1.4

Looks reasonable and covers things, nicely, Alastair.

But I would maybe say a Canon 17-55 2.8 either way just because that would be the main lens on the camera much of the time for many people, and the higher quality and durability would be worth the not-huge extra money in the long and even medium term. And if you shoot stills, its USM focusing is likely to be superior to the Tamron's AF.

Also: A used 50mm 1.8 Canon can be found for cheap and still be a good budget low light lens, esp. until you get a 1.4/2? 30mm or wider someday.

And:
5-High-quality Kenko/Tamron "Pro" 2x converter
Canon's pricey one has element extending in front that makes it only usable with their longer telephoto primes and a few tele zooms?, but the above would work with anything, and make the 30mm into a close-focusing 60mm 2.8?

Any thoughts on the sigma 18-50/2.8?

Any thoughts on the sigma 18-50/2.8?

I think this link covers all the lenses we have discussed.

All Tests / Reviews (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#canon_aps)

Sigma sounds sharp from a few user reviews I've seen, but it has NO Image Stabilization :(

And on the subject of Image Stabilization. I am sure this will be of interest.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/144079-do-image-stabilization-lenses-make-difference.html