Lens vs. body conundrum

I am debating between a couple of options to help with my wildlife shooting.

I purchased the 70-300L thinking that I could get close enough to the wildlife in my kayak to make up for the lack of reach vs. the 100-400. I also like the weather sealing, newer IS system and the great optics which I'm assuming are slightly better than the 100-400.

Since I don't have much ability to crop on my 40D, I am finding that the reach just isn't enough. I have thought about trading my 70-300 for a 100-400 to make up for this problem, but I'm afraid that I would miss the new IS system and shooting from a kayak I like the weather sealing on my 70-300.

Another option would be for me to sell my 40D and pick up a used 7D. I want to have the 7D eventually anyway and this would give me a combo with weather sealing and more ability to crop, so the 70-300 wouldn't be as much of an issue. Opinions?

Yes, keep your camera and buy a longer prime. If reach is the problem, get a longer lens.

I've had both the 40d and 7d.
Besides AF improvement, the 7D provided more pixels on target and Micro Focus Adjustment than made a nice difference with my 400mm F5.6. TC1.4 III may be an option with your 70-300, I don't know.

Get the 7D and 100-400; weather sealing isn't really going to do you any good if you go in the drink anyway. The 100-400 is fine in light rain, anyway, and anything heavier I suspect you'll be busier paddling for shelter than shooting.

The 7D is an excellent upgrade from the 40D for wildlife, and the IS on the 100-400 works surprisingly well for being such an old system.

Thanks for the comments guys. I'm looking to sell my 70-300 but no takers so far.

windpig wrote in post #13285103
I've had both the 40d and 7d.
Besides AF improvement, the 7D provided more pixels on target and Micro Focus Adjustment than made a nice difference with my 400mm F5.6. TC1.4 III may be an option with your 70-300, I don't know.

It doesn't take canon tc's, so that's not an option.

I have the 40 and the 7d as well with the 400 5.6. I am not sure but if I got the shot right I was more then able to crop at about 50% on the 40. I will admit that making 36" prints might have been out of the question but I did print to 13-19 on my printer fairly well. I added the 7d for iso performance. THAT has made a difference. With the 40 I could use 400 iso effectively and could push 800 but the noise really showed up. With the 7d I can use 800iso for many close up type shots and it does very well. This makes the lack of IS very insignificant. I personally do not notice that much more ability to crop but there is an increase in the details. Just my experience. Have a great day.

Thanks. I have found that I can crop quite a bit with the 40d as long as I am using a quality lens. That extra stop in ISO would be a plus as well.

One nice thing with the 7D is that the higher resolution makes cropping necessary, less often, than with the 40D; at least for me.

Well, I've managed to trade out my 70-300L and pick up an older model 100-400. I'm hoping that I made the right choice.

Right now I'm considering getting the 7D. I think I'm going to make the upgrade for the extra ISO and better autofocus. I would also really like to have MA on my body.

Just to point out about the weather sealing. Although it has been proven that 7D and 5DMKII bodies attached to a weather sealed lens have stood upto a good weather beating, one report was from somewhere very cold. Its only the combination of the 1D series and certain L series lenses that provide the full weather proofed system. The xD, xxD xxxD and xxxD ain't in the same league as the 1D series when it comes to weather proofing.

As for you lens, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 isn't a bad lens, there are some fantastic copies out there, unfortunately there are a few rouges, but usually fixed after a calibration at a canon service centre. The push pull system takes some getting use to and the focus ring and focus lock are close together, so there are a few quirks when using the lens.

As for the camera body v lens which do I replace?, well I've always gone with the lens every time, still using a canon 20D (plus 1D MKII), ok I would like a few extra megapixels (8mp) however I also see the problems with too may megapixels.

You could compromise a bit and buy a 50D instead of the 7D. I don't think that selling your 40D and buying a 50D would result in a cash setback of more than a couple hundred dollars, but the difference in pixel density is substantial.

I shoot most of my wildlife images with a 50D, and believe that it is the best 'bang-for the buck" wildlife body there is on the market today!

If you did upgrade to "just" a 50D, then you would have a good deal of cash left for a lens (compared to what you'd have if you upgraded to a 7D).

I ended up going with the 7d and the 100-400. I decided I would end up with both anyway.

Some samples

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Great choice...and nice shots!