Buy 7D or new lens...?

Hello,
I am in a buying situation at the moment.
I have a 5D Mkii, 50mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8 and a 70-200 f4.
I want to get a new lens for some longer reach so am thinking about the 300mm F4 with the IS. But then I was thinking I could actually get a 7D for about the same price and snap on the 70-200mm to get 112-320mm lens, and the benefit of a second camera body.

Do you think this is a sensible move? I want the longer reach for wildlife, sports, family etc, the 400mm f5.6 doesn't really attract me as it hasn't got IS.

get the sigma for your 5DII
any sigma with good reach
its good in (image quality) <<< because of your great camera
and good for the price

Could always entertain the idea of a 1.4xiii or 2.0xiii extender. It's going to stop you down a bit but it depending on what you are shooting, that may not matter.

For wildlife and sports you could take advantage of the 7D's faster/more accurate AF system as well as the 1.6x crop.

I own both cameras in question as well and I wouldn't have it any other way. Hope that helps.

I just picked up a 7D tonight to "double up" my lenses.

I missed having one as I sold my 7D a year ago.

Very sensible move ~ if only for the fact that if you do paid work, a second body is a must.

I shoot with a 5D MK II and 7D combo and will soon (drooling) add a 5D MK III. I will not be selling my 7D though, as there is no better "1.6 extender" out there, . . and this one also takes shots.

In good light there is no cheaper way to reach out and get some serious pixel density on your subject. Used whithin it's ISO limitations, the 7D is (and always will be) a fantastic tool.

I'm not sure what you want to shoot with longer reach, but if it's BIF or sports you'll want the AF capibilities of the 7D to lock on and track your prey.

doc.paradox wrote in post #14331317
Very sensible move ~ if only for the fact that if you do paid work, a second body is a must.

I shoot with a 5D MK II and 7D combo and will soon (drooling) add a 5D MK III. I will not be selling my 7D though, as there is no better "1.6 extender" out there, . . and this one also takes shots.

In good light there is no cheaper way to reach out and get some serious pixel density on your subject. Used whithin it's ISO limitations, the 7D is (and always will be) a fantastic tool.

I'm not sure what you want to shoot with longer reach, but if it's BIF or sports you'll want the AF capibilities of the 7D to lock on and track your prey.

Thank you all for your feedbacks.
Photography is not 'job' so I don't earn money from it in that respect, and i have't intentionally sold any of my photos...yet But I do love taking photos and my friends/family seem to like my photos so at least i'm doing something right.

I am leaning more towards the 7D as it gives me more flexibility with lenses i already have, and I can always lend it to the wife when we go on holidays, seems i take good photos of her and i end up with shots of myself taken with a point-n-shoot

I don't have a 7D, but I think that is what I would get.

I can tell you that in good light with ISO 800 or less my T1i is better IQ than the 5DII with extender on my 70-200 f4 IS at the same total f-stop. Plus you get f4 if you need it.

The 7D is a very good camera for nearly everything. The AF is very good and if you nail the exposure you'll get some teriffic photos from it. Plus you get the bonus of a second body, which is very handy even if you aren't making money from it. I had a 5D2 and 7D and sold them both for a 5D3, and while it's the best thing I ever did getting the 5D3 I did miss having the second camera. I ended up getting a 60D, which shares the same batteries, and is a great performer in it's own right. If you just want a lens for longer reach though, the Sigma 120-400 OS or the 150-500 OS will take some beating. Both are very sharp, have a great OS system and great reach for a very reasonable price.

modchild wrote in post #14331549
The 7D is a very good camera for nearly everything. The AF is very good and if you nail the exposure you'll get some teriffic photos from it. Plus you get the bonus of a second body, which is very handy even if you aren't making money from it. I had a 5D2 and 7D and sold them both for a 5D3, and while it's the best thing I ever did getting the 5D3 I did miss having the second camera. I ended up getting a 60D, which shares the same batteries, and is a great performer in it's own right. If you just want a lens for longer reach though, the Sigma 120-400 OS or the 150-500 OS will take some beating. Both are very sharp, have a great OS system and great reach for a very reasonable price.

I have the 60D and need a second body 5D is useless to me as I shoot sports and need the crop factor so 7D is my next buy, or the 7D MK2 or even the 6D

Since you don't make a living from this, I'd skip the second body and just get the lens you're looking for.

doc.paradox wrote in post #14331317
Very sensible move ~ if only for the fact that if you do paid work, a second body is a must.

I shoot with a 5D MK II and 7D combo and will soon (drooling) add a 5D MK III. I will not be selling my 7D though, as there is no better "1.6 extender" out there, . . and this one also takes shots.

In good light there is no cheaper way to reach out and get some serious pixel density on your subject. Used whithin it's ISO limitations, the 7D is (and always will be) a fantastic tool.

I'm not sure what you want to shoot with longer reach, but if it's BIF or sports you'll want the AF capibilities of the 7D to lock on and track your prey.

I have a similar plan, in that I currently own a 7D and will soon buy a 5D3, but am keeping the 7D. The crop body will be used then mostly for wildlife, while the 5D3 will do everything else.

Whenever we travel to someplace that is a "wildlife destination", such as Yellowstone N.P., with one body I end up switching lenses way more often than I like as I switch from landscape shots to wildlife and back. With two bodies, I should always be ready for either type of shot.

Scott M wrote in post #14331676
I have a similar plan, in that I currently own a 7D and will soon buy a 5D3, but am keeping the 7D. The crop body will be used then mostly for wildlife, while the 5D3 will do everything else.

Whenever we travel to someplace that is a "wildlife destination", such as Yellowstone N.P., with one body I end up switching lenses way more often than I like as I switch from landscape shots to wildlife and back. With two bodies, I should always be ready for either type of shot.

Some may argue that, that is fine if like you people have the money and can afford it, however, I have to agree, and whilst the 5D3 is useless to me I do have two bodies at the moment, a spare is a Nikon with a Nikkor 28-300 VR, my Canon has the 120-400, believe me I would really miss not having a spare (a) for convenience and (b) because god forbid if one packs up I DO have a SPARE

I'd sell the 70-200 f/4 and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x kenko teleconverter.

brokensocial wrote in post #14331558
Since you don't make a living from this, I'd skip the second body and just get the lens you're looking for.

This is exactly what I'm thinking, get your lens and enjoy

Do all three....

Get the 7D. I shoot with both FF and 1.6X cameras and they complement each other very nicely, leveraging my lens kit for all it's worth.

Also get the 300/4 IS. It's great to use on both FF and crop cameras. Nicely hand-holdable, thanks to the IS. It's quite good, though not quite as sharp wide open as the far more expensive 300/2.8. And, background blur or bokeh isn't as nice as the pricier lens (but usually can be improved fairly easily in Photoshop).

And get a 1.4X II, it will work fine on both your 70-200 and on the 300mm.