Which zoom to start with?

The 70-200mm 2.8 IS is a beautiful, beautiful lens, but I certainly wouldn't want it as my only lens, especially on a crop body; the focal lenth would be very restrictive.

If I was you, I would also consider the 16-35mm 2.8 which with the 1.6x crop factor would make it equivilent to a 26-57mm.

What I did was start out with a 18-55 and a 40D, and just go out and shoot. Later, while processing photos, I looked in lightroom to see which focal lengths I used the most, which turned out to be 50mm. So I would do as skip said, and just get the 18-55 and 55-250, just to see which focal lengths you like the most, and then buy accordingly.

SkipD wrote in post #13695912
What is that supposed to mean to a person just getting into his/her first camera? It does nothing more than throw a handful of confusion into the stew pot.

It means that the 7D has a "crop factor" of 1.6. So any lens on the 7D will give the same field of view as a lens 1.6 times the focal length.

The 24-70mm lens will give the same field of view as a 38-112mm lens on a full frame camera.

I had 18-55 and 55-250 for 2 years - both pretty good if you can use them)) Now I have 17-85 ( just love it), but I want sooo much to take one of Tamrons - or 17-50 or 28-75 - mostly because of their 2.8.

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13696596
It means that the 7D has a "crop factor" of 1.6. So any lens on the 7D will give the same field of view as a lens 1.6 times the focal length ON A FULL-FRAME CAMERA.

The 24-70mm lens will give the same field of view as a 38-112mm lens on a full frame camera.

Even you missed part of the definition so I fixed it in the quote above (in red).

My question was "What is that supposed to mean to a person just getting into his/her first camera?"

Tossing out a goofy calculation as an explanation to a newbie is supposed to make sense to the newbie? Get real. Most newbies to APS-C format DSLRs have never had any experience with the 35mm film format (either using film or so-called "full-frame" DSLRs), so the "crop factor" is nothing but a "confusion factor" to them when thrown into a thread like this one - especially when the information is incomplete and thus wrong.

SkipD wrote in post #13695390
My suggestion is to - for the time being - forget "L" series lenses and get something in the 18-55 range and the EF-S 55-250 for starters. When you get good enough to be running into the limitations of these lenses, THEN you can progress to the "L" family of lenses because you will then understand what you really need/want.

+1
start with 55-250 IMO. When you find it's limitations then move up the the L.

Also, I always reccomend getting a EF 50 f/1.8 for $120 New/~$95 Used and practice the aperture and shutter speed. Get Understanding Exposure for ~$20 in one hand and your EF 50 /1.8 (B&H Photo or Adorama) in the other and practice what Bryan Peterson writes about. for less than $150 you will save yourself a **** ton of money instead of trial and error purchases.

Also, the hype here is extremely high for the EF 70-200/2.8 IS ii. While i have not used it I know damn well that the extra money for the second version is not worth it for most people not getting paid. Im sure if you used just about any flavor of that range, a starter couldn't tell the difference between them all. If you are insistent on that range though, look at other options too:

Referenced off Adorama.com
Sigma 70-200/2.8 (~$900)
Sigma 70-200/2.8 with OS (~$1400)
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS Mk i (~$1400 used in FS forum)
Canon 70-200/2.8 non-IS (~$1300)
Canon 70-200/4 (~$650)
Canon 70-200/4 IS (~$1100)
Tamron 70-200/2.8 (~$700)

As for the EF 24-70/2.8, are you planning on moving to full frame? If not, why not look at the EF-s 17-55/2.8? orSigmas 17-50/2.8 OS? These are both great walkarounds to consider also. Especially with the Sigma for the savings in money.

Sorry to be long winded here but don't get caught up in all the top shelf lenses if your only shooting for personal use. I cringe when I hear friends wanting to jump into photography and i see them looking at 5Dii or 7D because a "professional photographer who is a friend" of theirs said those are the best cameras and no others should be considered (Or whatever dirt i have heard regurgitated)

SkipD wrote in post #13696732
Even you missed part of the definition so I fixed it in the quote above (in red).

My question was "What is that supposed to mean to a person just getting into his/her first camera?"

Tossing out a goofy calculation as an explanation to a newbie is supposed to make sense to the newbie? Get real. Most newbies to APS-C format DSLRs have never had any experience with the 35mm film format (either using film or so-called "full-frame" DSLRs), so the "crop factor" is nothing but a "confusion factor" to them when thrown into a thread like this one - especially when the information is incomplete and thus wrong.

+1 again...
At work i am the photo geek (as much of a begginer i consider myself at times) and yet a co-worker constantly tries to bend his head over what is a crop sensor vs a full frame. He also gets caught up in trying to understand that viewing at 100% means you are enlarging the picture.

It doesn't matter in the end. What you see is what you see, push that shutter and ignore that x1.6 bull. What is printed and hung on the wall is a picture, not a discussion that 100mm on a 7d actually means the picture was shot at 160mm on a 5D. You might as well tell them the focal length of their iPhone photos aren't really 35mm because of crop factor and that it really is 4.8mm. IT DOESN'T MATTER!

/rant

*sigh*

I've got a 24-105 f4 L IS which came with my 5D2 but it spends about the same amount of time on my 7D as it does on my 5D2. The IQ on the 7D is brilliant, colours are vibrant and although its not really wide it's worth having for the reach. I've got a 70-200 f4 L which is tack sharp and probably my most used lens at the moment but, I'm seriously thinking of selling this and my MP-E65 and going for a 70-200 2.8 IS L. It would have to be the MkI though as I can't afford to go for the MkII.