Confused, choices?

I currently have a 7D that I love, use it for sports, and a 5D Mark II for other stuff, and as a "just-in-case" backup for my 7D. I actually just got it back last week from a Canon clean-and-check, and all was well except for some dust.

I have about $800 that I got from Christmas stuff, and wondering what I should do:

1. Sell my 70-200 Mark I and use the cash for the Mark II
2. Save more and invest in a 1D Mark III. I've heard a lot about having this as more of a primary rather than backup to the 7D.
3. Save more and invest in a 300mm or 400mm lens.
4. Sell my 100-400 and invest in a 300mm-400mm lens.

Just confused and was hoping for some thoughts/opinions from you all. I am NOT leaning in any particular direction.

Thanks!!

If I were in your shoes, and still shooting sports, the money would be best spent on a high-end longer sports lens. What a luxury it would be to have a 300 or 400 f/2.8 L on the 7D and the 70-200 f/2.8L on the 5D2 for shooting sports.

To make it worth the investment, I'd have to be shooting sports for a good 3-5 more years to make a step up to the 300 or 400mm lens worthwhile. That's just my thinking, though. Yours might differ. OTOH, I was able to make due with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS on a 50D then a 7D for my son's entire HS football career. Used a 5D classic for sideline, coach and cheerleader shots with the 85mm f/1.8.

Having a 5D2 with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a long sports lens for a 7D would pretty much be a pro setup. Minus the 1D mark IV, of course!

dave

Thanks for your thoughts. I had edited the post to add the 100-400. I don't really use it that much, only used it for some outdoor flag football, and that's it. So maybe I'll sell that, and use the cash and save more to get a 300 2.8. I doubt I'd save enough for a 400 2.8 by the springtime. And I shoot indoor sports too, so 2.8 would help.

Thanks again!

Sounds like a plan. I don't think upgrading your 70-200 is a good use of the money at all. Terrible, really.

Yes! Unfortunately, the 100-400 plus the Christmas money only gets you to a non-IS 300L. A 300/2.8L IS will be another grand+.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #13628740
Yes! Unfortunately, the 100-400 plus the Christmas money only gets you to a non-IS 300L. A 300/2.8L IS will be another grand+.

Yea, I noticed that. I have some computer equipment to sell, so if I could get that done I'd be all set.. Question though: if I use the 300 with a monopod, which I think I always will, would IS really matter? Is there also any difference in optical quality between IS and non-IS?

Another recent thread pointed out that the non-IS is an old and unsupported lens now; that's why there's such a dramatic price difference. Look for that thread; it'll have way more info than I know.

Even if it were current, I don't think I'd buy without IS. 300mm on a crop brings you right to 1/500 as minimum standard handholding speed. I'd want to feel comfortable shooting at 1/300 if needed, without a support. Extreme case, but still.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #13631370
Another recent thread pointed out that the non-IS is an old and unsupported lens now; that's why there's such a dramatic price difference. Look for that thread; it'll have way more info than I know.

Even if it were current, I don't think I'd buy without IS. 300mm on a crop brings you right to 1/500 as minimum standard handholding speed. I'd want to feel comfortable shooting at 1/300 if needed, without a support. Extreme case, but still.

That explains why I can't even find any info on the non-IS on Google... And I agree on the handholding, guess its nice to have it if I need it.

Like I said, hopefully I can offload some stuff and get to where I need to be. I appreciate your help, and the info on the non-IS.

Ok, it looks like the most I can probably save within the next few months is about $2,000, so it kinda limits my choices. Any revisions to my plan??

If you're shooting sports, I'm not sure why IS is a necessity. Get a monopod if movement concerns you that much. For the $2K you have you could purchase a 1D Mark III used body and sell the 7D and use the Mark II as a backup.

elrey2375 wrote in post #13632086
If you're shooting sports, I'm not sure why IS is a necessity. Get a monopod if movement concerns you that much. For the $2K you have you could purchase a 1D Mark III used body and sell the 7D and use the Mark II as a backup.

I always use a monopod for sports, so that's not an issue for me. The thing is if I get the 1D and use it as a primary, and sell the 7D, the only thing I'd miss is the higher megapixels for cropping, unless someone with a 1D III can say it won't be an issue. Sucks that I don't know enough to decide... sorry. I don't use video with the 7D at all, so that doesn't matter.

Thanks for your reply.

Having all the above options you mentioned....I like to put a 300 on the 7D and 70-200 on my mark 3 for outdoor stuff. Other than a little seperation/DOF difference....the 300 f4 would still give solid results.
Re: the "IS" or not "IS", I turn my "IS" off once I hit a shutterspeed over 500 ( ie all moving sports) ...my focus speed and lock in speed improves with IS off ( maybe it's just me though!).

My 5D2 has never seen a sporting event so I can't offer anything regarding it's performance.

The Mark 3/4 is the standard of all sports bodies....really second to none with focus lock on and performance. Does lock on better than my 7D. Although both give good files for cropping and printing.

Purchase an old 300 2.8 w/o IS....unless you get it REAL cheap...I wouldn't. Tough re-sale market and minimal Canon service would stop me.

Re: the 70-200 mark 2.....get it if you can...will become your best friend!

kenjancef wrote in post #13633344
I always use a monopod for sports, so that's not an issue for me. The thing is if I get the 1D and use it as a primary, and sell the 7D, the only thing I'd miss is the higher megapixels for cropping, unless someone with a 1D III can say it won't be an issue. Sucks that I don't know enough to decide... sorry. I don't use video with the 7D at all, so that doesn't matter.

Thanks for your reply.

This was shot on a 1D Mark III and I've included the original and the crop so you can see. These are both straight out of the camera, 300 2.8, no noise reduction or anything. 1600 ISO. IMO if you run the crop through Dfine or your noise reduction program of choice, you're good to go. Hope this helps you.

2473 x 1606

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://img214.imagesha​ck.us/img214/1508/744r​00481.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

elrey2375 wrote in post #13635962
This was shot on a 1D Mark III and I've included the original and the crop so you can see. These are both straight out of the camera, 300 2.8, no noise reduction or anything. 1600 ISO. IMO if you run the crop through Dfine or your noise reduction program of choice, you're good to go. Hope this helps you.

Wow, nice shots! This helps a lot, because I'm thinking I won't get to the point of getting a 300 anytime soon, and I need to sell my 100-400 as well, but I should hopefully not have too much of a problem selling that.

Might invest in DFine instead of using stock Lightroom, especially after seeing those.

Thanks again!!!

AntonLargiader wrote in post #13631370
Another recent thread pointed out that the non-IS is an old and unsupported lens now; that's why there's such a dramatic price difference. Look for that thread; it'll have way more info than I know...

This could be the thread you are talking about...
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1132198

and another from today asking basically th esame thing...
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1132616

philwillmedia wrote in post #13637591
This could be the thread you are talking about...
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1132198

and another from today asking basically th esame thing...
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1132616

Thanks for those threads, makes me want the IS, but I don't think I can swing it. I am thinking of just sticking with the bodies I have (7D, 5d Mark II), sell the 100-400, combine my cash, and either try to wait to see if I can save more for the 300, or use the cash I have for a different lens altogether, but not sure what my other choices are.

Maybe a 135L, to use as an indoor lens and a close outdoor lens, and get a 2x teleconverter for my 70-200 (which I did have but sold a few months ago because I got the 100-400). I HATE CONFUSION!!!! I also hate the fact that I HOPE I'll be good enough to use the gear I have.. lol...