Got the 7D, now what?

[ukpa]

<p>I've had the 7D and 15-85mm for 2 days and I'm absolutely delighted. The camera is way beyond my expectations, but it will take a bit of learning to get the best from it.<br>

Now I've got to spend some money on another lens.</p>

<p>I've narrowed the choices down to:<br>

EF 70-200mm f/2.8<br>

EF 300mm f/4<br>

EF 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6</p>

<p>So, having no experience of Canon lenses, I'd like some feedback on these lenses. Also, can anyone tell me how the 70-200mm with a 1.4TC stacks up against the 300mm prime?</p>

<p>I do a bit of birding (hopeless at it, but I enjoy it) and some motorsport.<br>

What does the panel think?</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>100-400, please get that one</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>The 70-200 is also a great lens, but its really not that long. Specially for birding, sports etc. I use mine mainly for portraits and street candid photography in natural light( I have the 2.8 version). And with the 1.4x, image degrades quite a bit at the 200mm end. The 300mm f4 prime is also good, but I just love the versatility of the 100-400, and its got two levels of IS. Its fast focusing and sharp wide open. Take a look at this one, shot with 5D, wide open at f5.6, keep in mind the lion is far away with a huge fence right in front of the lens. The lens wide open made the fence disappear.<br>

<br /> <a href="http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/angelboc/?action=view&current=IMG_1643.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n179/angelboc/IMG_1643.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a> <br /> <br /></p>

[ukpa]

<p>I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm. I had the sony 70-400mm and that was a great lens, but at full zoom tracking planes, it was like waving a rocket launcher around and I kept expecting to be pounced on by several hefty policemen :)<br>

Nice kitty, Angel.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Well, the 100-400 is not an internal zoom type like the 70-200. It is the type that you have to push/pull to extend the zoom and it extends maybe another 3/4 length of the lens, and its white. So it is long but I would not call it a rocket launcher. And congrats on the 7D, I love mine as well. It is just the king of the crops, or the king of the DX(for nikonians). That particular combo will work absolutely wonderful for your type of shots, 7D+100-400L.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>Bill, just scroll down in this forum to Alexander Sukonkins "My Canon EF 400mm f/5,6L review"</p>

<p>I dont think you will have any doughts after reading that and looking to his photographs of birds.</p>

[ukpa]

<p>Thanks, Bengt,<br>

There are some great images there and the lens IQ is amazing, but I discounted this lens, for now, as it's a one trick pony.<br>

I'm going to have a limited amount of glass for a while until the bank account gets out of rehab and I need to cover as many bases as possible in the short term. I know the 300mm prime is also a bit limited in application, but with the slightly shorter focal length and one stop advantage, it is usable at indoor events.<br>

Still leaning towards the 100-400mm but recognise the value of the 70-200mm speed.<br>

I was always crap at decision making (sigh)</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>For what information you give, I would get the 100-400mm. I have it and the 70-200 and the 100-400 just does do for birds, longer would be better but the zoom is very versatile.<br>

Or longer, for wildlife, birds.<br>

Then the 70-200. The F4 might do you if you get the one withe IS unless your shooting calls for<br>

the 2.8.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Bill, they are such totally different lenses there should be no doubt which you need, if there is, you don't need either! The 70-200 is many pro's bread and butter lens, it does many things very very well, it is not a birding enabled telephoto lens though. If you need one of those that has a decent amount of flexibility then the 100-400 is your lens (unless you get close to Florida sized birds and then the 300 might just be workable). There are strong rumours of a new version soon though, but even if that materialises I am sure it will be very upgraded along with the price (probably fixed f4), similar to the now two versions of the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>Have fun with your new gear, Scott.</p>

[ukpa]

<p>Scott,<br>

"they are such totally different lenses there should be no doubt which you need, if there is, you don't need either"<br>

Truth is, I need both, I'm trying to figure which I need first, as I can only afford one at a time. For my own fun, it's the 100-400mm, for work related (I get the odd magazine commission), the 70-200mm. Emotionally, I'll go for the 100-400mm. BUT, given this awful winter climate with white/grey cloud and rain, birding ops are not plentiful in winter, so a practical decision would be to go for the 70-200mm and pick up the 100-400mm in the Spring, when finances have recovered.</p>

<p>Did I mention before that I can't make decisions?</p>

 

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Make that last planned decision, because as the other guy mentioned and many others, there are very strong rumor of an updated 100-400L, chances are you'll find that lens for less than a 1k on ebay or refurbished. Just last week they had a refurbished 100-400L at sammy's camera in Los Angeles for 1180, new condition.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hey there Bill,</p>

<p>Well if there is a chance of earning money before spring with it then get the 70-200, I'll be decisive for you, if a good birding op comes up before then just blame me :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The review on a "crop", more properly APS-C, body of the 100-400mm at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review">Photozone.de</a> is very positive, and if I didn't have a daughter still in college I'd buy one before the prices go up. The design is fairly old, and there may be a revision one of these days, but when it comes, it'll surely be more pricey than it is already, and it's not likely to happen tomorrow (although every time I predict Canon's behavior, they always go counter to my predictions).</p>

<p>Let us know how the 15-85mm works out. Many of us have been waiting for that one for some time and would like to know about how it works, etc.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>If.. If... If... If I had the chance I'd own them all.<br>

I have a 45D and a 7D and I've spent a lot of time with my 100-400L. I'm glad I've got it... will never sell it... However:<br>

I spend most of my time with at the long end. When I'm not there I'm shooting something closer around the 100-200 range. It is nice to have in the woods to get the occasional shot of a deer at 50 yards or closer where a 400 prime would be too long. But... most of what I want is at the long end... and I'd be happier with a 400 5.6 (well actually I'd be happier with an 8K 600) for the majority of my tele shots. <br>

If someone told me today I could only own one or the other... I'd go for the IQ of the 400 5.6.<br>

This has been posted before...<br>

<a href="http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm">http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm</a></p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>You'll want to go with the 100-400mm for birds and wild life. Here's a good size mule deer that didn't really need cropping, as taken with my 400mm f5.6L on the 7D:<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2764/4134530829_4256c1101f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br />This mallard hen, taken with the same lens, required about an 80% crop:<br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/4081565681_8774f5ecbb.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="370" /><br />For birds in flight, you might consider a good tripod with gimbal head for better results. Deer are comparatively easy, particularly if you can brace against a tree or the car or something steady.</p>

<p>The TC1.4 added to the 300mm will technically get you the same reach, plus 20mm. The 1.4 added to the 100-400 is even better for smaller birds. The only problem is that, at f5.6 the AF will not work, so you'll need to manual focus with the TC.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>For birding the 100-400 is certainly a better choice than the 70-200 lenses, but I feel that everyone should have a 70-200 in their bag. It's an amazingly versatile lens. I would also like to hear what you think about the 15-85; that may be my next purchase.</p>

[markonestudios]

Bill, emotion vs logic is always an interesting one. I would support your decision to go 70-200 f/2.8 IS now then 100-400 later. It makes sense. Imagine getting stuck at an indoors venue with no room to back up and you have to grab a tight headshot. The 70-200 not only overlaps nicely with your 15-85 but also provides a constant 2.8 aperture. Very useful IMHO. Since you still have the 100-400L "in your sights" then there's no loss really, is there? Besides, given the 7D's IQ and good AF, you can probably afford to crop closer when necessary, for the occasional birding you may get to do in winter. If you do come across a serious bird shoot, you can always rent the 100-400L, can't you? Then eventually add it to your arsenal, which you alluded to doing anyway. And if by then you feel really don't need the 70-200, there will definitely be plenty of people ready and willing to take it off your hands (in exchange for money, of course! :))

[photos of hans koot]

<p>I am with Mark, but instead of choosing the 100-400 later maybe better get the fixed focus 400mm 5.6 later? I have very good results with my 100-400 on my 5dmkII but i need to stop it down for that. Options enough...</p>

[ukpa]

<p>Thanks, everyone for taking the time to give me great advice.</p>

<p>After much deliberation, I reached a compromise of sorts. I picked up a 70-200mm f/4 on eBay this morning. I'm not afraid of high ISO on the 7D so that takes care of that particular range at a low price. Which leaves enough for a long lens. After reading the shootout at ejphoto.com, I've gone off the 100-400mm a bit in favour of the higher IQ of a prime, but the light in this neck of the woods is never that great and I think I would struggle with a 400mm f/5.6 without IS. So, I'm going for a 300mm f/4 with IS and will add a 1.4TC later. I had great success with the A700 and Minolta 300mm f/4 plus TC.<br>

Regarding the 15-85mm, I can't really give an objective opinion as I have nothing to measure it against as yet and I don't know the camera well enough to venture a guess. I will say that it looks sharp and contrasty enough for every day use.</p>

<p>I'll update you guys on the new lenses once I get a chance to put them to use.</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hello, nikon user here invading the eos forums :P<br>

I use two lenses mainly, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4 (you darned canistas have the 300/4IS, sooo jealous) plus 1.4x TC. If you are shooting wildlife (especially birds, omg) you're going to be almost at max tele most of the time, so might as well go prime and get kickass quality. And it's F4 at 300mm, 5.6 with tc at 420mm. That said, the 100-400 has amazing range, stabilized and the close focus distance is to die for. Most of my gallery images are a mix of the 70-200 and 300/4 and 300/4 with tc.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>100-400 is my go-to lens for motorsports (Indy 500, F1, motoGP). That said, you'll still want the 1.4 tc.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>For <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=844914">bird photography</a> a prime is better in my opinion. The longer the better.</p>

<p>For <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=848031">airshows</a> and motorsports, you'd be better off with a zoom.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You can view detailed test crops for just about every Canon lens, many with TCs as well, at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/</p>

<p>The 300 f/4L IS is sharper than the 100-400 at 300mm and a lot sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x. (The 70-200 is a great lens, but if you need greater reach then there are better options than that lens plus extender.) You may still prefer the 100-400 over the 300 because of the zoom flexibility. The main IQ advantage of the 300 is in the corners. (For what it's worth, I went with the 300 and love it. But the 100-400 is a respectable lens.)</p>

[fred_labounty]

<p>100-400 with TC really compromises the quality on mine. Stick with primes if you want to use the TC.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Good choices, Bill. I think you'll really like the versatility of the 70-200mm range. I didn't use mine much at first but now I use it a lot (I have the 2.8 IS version); in fact it's one of my most used lenses along with my 17-40. I find that I use it for just about every type of photography from landscape to close-range birding. I will probably spring for a 100-400 in the near future but like I said earlier, the 15-85 sounds like a good 'standard' lens to use on the 7D, so that'll come first.</p>