Got the 7D, now what?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The 100-400 is not a fast lens at 400 mm. It also is not that sharp at 400 unless it is stopped down even further, which makes it slower still. You might consider the EF 400 f/5.6, especially if you plan to use the 100-400 primarily at the long end. Even so, you are going to have trouble with BIF shots in all but the best light.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a real workhorse, and on a 7D (with crop factor of 1.6) with a 1.4 TC you are going to be reaching pretty far--about 448 mm in terms of effective focal length for FF equivalency. I use it primarily on the FF Canons, but I also use a second-hand (read "half-priced") Sigma 300 2.8 on the 50D. It works pretty well, and so I have some idea of what the cropped sensor cameras can do with reasonably long lenses.</p>

<p>My only really long lens is an old manual focus Nikon 600 f/4, which has worked pretty well on Canon FF cameras with a cheap adapter, but I sometimes miss the auto-focus. It is a bear to carry (especially with a Wimberley gimbal mount), but it works pretty well on static or slow-moving objects. I have used it on the moon to advantage: http://www.photo.net/photo/10254494&size=lg</p>

<p>I think that I would get the 70-200 or the 300 and work on getting a longer lens later. Otherwise you are going to be stuck with some compromise lenses that you might regret. My choice would be the 70-200 IS.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D with the 400mm f5.6L is fine in fairly low light, because the noise of the 7D at ISO 1600 is pretty darn low. The problem is that you can't AF with the 1.4TC with the 5.6. Compare the images of the 7D to the 50D at 1600 and 3200 and you'll see a major step forward in high-ISO performance.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I use the Sigma 100-300 f/4, like the flexibility of the zoom, very fast focus and takes a 1.4 Sigma teleconverter very well.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Manuel that Sigma 100-300 f/4 is a real sleeper. Never gets mentioned much and is probably one of Sigma's all time best.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Michael and Manuel, that sigma does not compare to the canon 100-400L, its slowww focusing in low light, no IS and very soft wide open on a tripod, specially at the edges.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>It also is not that sharp at 400 unless it is stopped down even further</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Simply</strong> .<br /> <strong></strong></p>

<p><strong>Not</strong> .</p>

<p><strong>True.</strong></p>

<p>My 100-400mm is never stopped down past f/6.3 - and it's sharp as you could possibly want:<a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/farnes/puffin_farnes_4.jpg"><br /> </a> <br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/farnes/puffin_farnes_4.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/0136b7a1.jpg">Example </a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/0136b7a1.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/muteswan1af.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/sanderling_st_marys_2f.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/domestic_goose_marden_5af.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/keithreeder/bluetit1f.jpg">Example</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/farnes/shag_farnes_1.jpg">Example</a></p>

<p>And many, many, many more.<br /> <strong><br /> </strong> <br /> <strong>Exif is in all of these - they're all 400mm, f/6.3 (<em>but 5.6 is just as sharp</em> ) and handheld.</strong></p>

<p>The BIF at the top (an Atlantic Puffin)<strong> </strong> is less than 10 inches long and travels about about 40 mph - and the 100-400mm (on a 40D) managed just fine.</p>

<p>There's just so much <em>nonsense</em> written about the supposed "failings" of the 100-400mm...<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[ukpa]

<p>Some great shots there, Keith. Love the Puffin.<br>

There's a review on FM which says this lens doesn't perform well on a 7D. Anyone have this experience?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Bill, can you provide a link to the comment about the 100-400mm on the 7D?</p>

<p>My EF 400mm f5.6L is stunning on my 7D. I'd be real surprised if there were a problem with the 100-400mm.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[ukpa]

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19">Link to review:</a></p>

[dcstep]

<p>Here's an actual test with comparative test images. Put in the 400mm vs the 100-400mm and compare for yourselves:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1&Camera=453&CameraComp=453&Sample=0&SampleComp=0<br>

The 100-400mm does really well at 400mm, almost equalling the prime 400mm. It suffers a little at some shorter focal lengths, but at maximum reach it's right there.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>Keith, Great Examples! There is certainly nothing wrong with your lens. I can't wait to get mine onto my new DSLR for some tests, I've never had any complaints with it on film.</p>