Roxie2401 wrote in post #17470745
I recently sold my 7D and now have the 5D MK III, but.......there were times when I used my 70-300 (non-L) and got the 1.6x factor, making it a 480. Now, naturally, on the FF, its basically a 300mm max lens.
With the recent price drop on the 7D MK II, should I make that leap and add a crop body back into the kit, or find better glass? Does the capabilities of 7D MK II make it a positive addition? Note: Even the new 100-400mm still isn't going to get me back to where I was with the crop body, without a teleconverter.
I know this has been discussed over and over and I'm sorry to bring it up again (FF vs. Crop) or maybe "Body vs. Glass."
I also know a lot of this comes down to "what do you shoot" most. How often do you need that additional reach, etc.? Does it make sense to have a Full Frame and a Crop Body?
Thanks so much for the great input.
I'd go with glass here. A 100-400 II costs in a similar range as the 7D2. You have a 5D3. I'd take a 5D3 + 400mm, over a 7D2 + 300mm. The 80mm difference in glass and the resulting overall change in field of view from it is negligible and I would consider no loss really.
It makes sense to have APS-C, APS-H and Full Frame, they have their spots. But it really depends on what you need. If you need reach, I would suggest you put money into physical focal length reach, before fiddling with crops. The resolution difference has to be rather significant to make it an advantage. Since you already have the 5D3, I think physical glass is the better route for cost, and just get the biggest piece of longest glass you can.
In fact, instead of the 100-400, I'd even suggest you simply look for a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and a 1.4x, 2.0x TC and have 120 f2.8, 300 f2.8, 420 F4, 600 F5.6 as options instead for a very similar cost.