Lens Upgrade 100-400L?

Hunt-man wrote in post #15606447
I went with the 70-200 2.8 II and if I need more I will get a 2x converter. I've got the 7D now and will not be focusing on birds, mainly outdoor / nature / mountains / rivers / fishermen / fish etc. I'll see how it works for me.

I also wanted the 2.8 for low light. I love shooting late and night shots.

Some of the shots with the 100-400 are just excellent. It was a tough choice and I'm not sure I made the right one.

You made the right decision IMHO. The 100-400 lenses come up often with sale prices at or below $1,200 and I've watched a bunch of newer ones lately sell for about $1,100. Easier to save up $1,100 than 2 grand.

I didn't look at the gear list, but if ou like shooting a lot of nature, you may want to go with a wide prime next. You'll get those great mountain and river shots.

Snydremark wrote in post #15606475
Believe me; there's a use for having both in your bag. You'll find out soon enough if you made the right choice for your own shooting, for now. You have one hell of a piece of glass coming your way, though.

What about adding a 2x converter to it? Is that as good as the 100-400? Then I don't need both?

mikeinctown wrote in post #15606487
You made the right decision IMHO. The 100-400 lenses come up often with sale prices at or below $1,200 and I've watched a bunch of newer ones lately sell for about $1,100. Easier to save up $1,100 than 2 grand.

I didn't look at the gear list, but if ou like shooting a lot of nature, you may want to go with a wide prime next. You'll get those great mountain and river shots.

With the 7D I have the 10-22 and I like it a lot. You may be right about the wide prime as I see night star shots / star tails in my future.

Hunt-man wrote in post #15606643
What about adding a 2x converter to it? Is that as good as the 100-400? Then I don't need both?

With the 7D I have the 10-22 and I like it a lot. You may be right about the wide prime as I see night star shots / star tails in my future.

In my experience, no; the 100-400 was WAY better than the 70-200 + 2x TC when I tried it out. The combo setup was, consistently, way softer than the native lens @ 400; even when the rig was set up on a tripod and manually focused via Live View @ 10x magnification. Below are comparisons with that configuration, focused as well as possible, on the top, ivy leaf toward the center of the trunk.

100-400:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​015605/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​626868/

Thanks for the comparison pics on the 2X Conv V 100-400. Clearly the 400 is better. Gotta pay for this one first and see how much I miss the 200-400 range. Hope I don't feel the need for both.

You're seriously going to love that 70-200, no matter what. I bought mine when it first came out, have only used it a couple of dozen times since then, and I STILL would pay full price for it again, if I had to. It's just one of the best pieces of glass I've had a chance to use.

Snydremark wrote in post #15606731
In my experience, no; the 100-400 was WAY better than the 70-200 + 2x TC when I tried it out. The combo setup was, consistently, way softer than the native lens @ 400; even when the rig was set up on a tripod and manually focused via Live View @ 10x magnification. Below are comparisons with that configuration, focused as well as possible, on the top, ivy leaf toward the center of the trunk.

100-400:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​015605/
100-400 by Guideon72, on Flickr

70-200 MkII + 2x TC MkIII:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​626868/
70_200MkII_2.0x-0455 by Guideon72, on Flickr

Also, the 10-22 works beautifully on the 7D for star shots, etc.

Same shutter speed?

Edit: In good light I get great results with 7D at 1600 with 70-200ii/2x iii combo and speeds above 1500

The 70-200 II s a great lens, unfortunately with wildlife even 400mm will never be enough. As shown above, with the 2x TC, it cannot compete at 400mm with the native 400mm lens. You lose out on IQ and the fast focus of the 7d is compromised..........
Within the range of 200mm though you'll get some superb images, if not, theres only you to blame..........

regatta wrote in post #15607901
Same shutter speed?

Edit: In good light I get great results with 7D at 1600 with 70-200ii/2x iii combo and speeds above 1500

The OP was particularly interested in low light shooting that's why the 70-200/2.8 came up..........

h14nha wrote in post #15607925
The OP was particularly interested in low light shooting that's why the 70-200/2.8 came up..........

No prob. I simply asked if it was the same shutter speed.

The sigma 50-500 OS is a great option. At 400mm as compared to the 100-400L, the L is sharper, but at 500mm the sigma is sharper than the 100-400L at 400mm. The OS works much better than the IS too.

regatta wrote in post #15607901
Same shutter speed?

Edit: In good light I get great results with 7D at 1600 with 70-200ii/2x iii combo and speeds above 1500

Well, I *thought* they were. However, one is 1/320 and one is 1/200; not really relevant, however, since both were also shot from a tripod. If you have good results from the combo, though, I'd say share some; there is copy variation amongst all of these pieces.

regatta wrote in post #15606242
Fort DeSoto?

None of them.

Enjoy your 70-200. It is a great lens. It will some times be a little short for shooting off the boat. But then the 100-400L needs good light which is some times hard to come by in the PNW. There was no bad choice. Get a lens coat and have fun.

Mike

[QUOTE=TeamSpeed;15608​110]The sigma 50-500 OS is a great option. At 400mm as compared to the 100-400L, the L is sharper, but at 500mm the sigma is sharper than the 100-400L at 400mm.

Is that really true, I've never seen any evidence to corroborate that ? Has anyone ever tried them out at those focal lengths, I would swap out my 100-400 if that was proven to be true..........

h14nha wrote in post #15610097
Is that really true, I've never seen any evidence to corroborate that ? Has anyone ever tried them out at those focal lengths, I would swap out my 100-400 if that was proven to be true..........

I have compared 3 different 100-400Ls to my Sigma. At 400mm, the Canon wide open is a tad sharper, but at 500mm the Sigma goes sharper. I didn't have time to go through one of my mini-reviews however. Each time I wanted the lighter smaller compressed package of the 100-400L, but after comparisons, I would always just sell off the 100-400L.

All it takes is someone to have both to corroborate my findings.