for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

Sold everything like a year ago.
Thought i could live without photo gear. So im starting over.

Im trying to make things different this time.

For $1640 i could do 11-16, 17-50 & 50-150.
For $1740 i could do 16-28, 28-75, 70-200.

In your opinion, what range would you choose for the price?

War.

Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

what are the f stops of those lenses?

Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

With right f stops, it's easy. 11-150. Wider is better on 7d. More useful, but that range requires multiple lenses.

Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

Looks like it's all f2.8 constant aperture.

I have pretty well both ranges covered, but I would suggested just getting the 17-50/2.8 first. Ultra-wide is great (I have the 11-16/2.8), but I find my 18-50/2.8 covers the wide end well enough most of the time.

Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

In this order:
17-50 f2.8 first

11-16 f2.8 or/and 70-200 f2.8

It really depends on what you're shooting. If you're not that much into telephoto, you can even opt for the 70-300mm 3.5-6.3 Canon cheapo without IS.

Re: for 1.8k, would you prefer to cover 11-150mm or 16-200mm?
 

I'm guessing those lenses are third party manufactured?
I think you've covered most of the ranges that one needs with the two options.
You're better off in choosing fast lenses (F2.8) or primes if you plan on filming with natural lighting conditions.

The reach of a lens is less important, but that depends on what you're filming. I wouldn't film a pack of wolves with a 17-50mm ;-) or would I??