7D and 100-400?

larrycumba wrote in post #14568366
Opinions on how this combo would work. Looking to use it for birding. Looking for reach and this should do it. Wide open at 400 would the sharpness be up to par? Thought about the Sigma 150-500 but keep reading it is soft. That's the last thing I need.

If you primarily shoot birds then the 400mm prime might be better, (slightly sharper, takes a teleconverter, cheaper,) I use the 100-400 because it's more versatile than a prime for sports, zoo, and of course birds.

I bought this lens primarily for birding with my 7D, and I'm not disappointed. I took this shot of a brown pelican in flight in overcast weather, shooting at 1/2000, f/8 and ISO 800. It did a good job of locking AF and getting good feather details.

This is really a great combo.

I just picked up a gently used copy. I've only used on my 5D2 , but am pleased with the results so far. Much easier to handhold than the Sigma 150-500 I used to have.
The push pull has not required nearly the adjustment I thought it would. I'm going to try to shoot upcoming dragon boat races with the 100-400 on both bodies(7D).Looking forward to giving it a good work out. Will also have my 70-200 2.8 to interchange with if I need extra speed.

The 100-400L with the 7D is a beautiful combo. You won't be sorry.

BUT! You must also realize and consider the following:
-the 100-400 is a push-pull zoom. people are very love/hate with this.
-the 100-400 is huge and heavy. would this ever deter you from taking it somewhere?
-you'll want a good tripod to hold this combo or your wrists will be very sore at the end of the day
-are you buying this exclusively to get a 400mm focal length? If so, a 400mm f/5.6L prime will provide better results. (or the 300mm f/4L IS with a 1.4tx) If you already have a 70-200 or similar focal length, you may want to consider this an option as well

Only you can decide if it's right for you. If it were me, I'd say go for it- but make sure its what you need first.

I had a 100-400 and a Sigma 150-500 OS and after I'd gone from 2 bodies (5D2 and 7D) down to one new one (5D3) I took a lot of time testing the pair and while the IQ of both was very similar I found the Sigma better overall. The OS/IS is far better on the Sigma, enabling me to hand hold at 1/10sec, and the Sigma handled failing light better than the Canon, meaning the AF was more consistant and faster than the Canon. The Sigma is certainly not soft as the OP has been reading. The Canon 100-400 is a fair legend amongst aviation and bird photographers and is excellent, but my experience of the Sigma was and still is excellent.

I have the 100-400 as well, with a 20D, and its 100% at aviation and larger birds, but even using it with a 1DMk2, its not the fastest focusing lens. Its not slow, but I truly think for birding the 400 5.6 is better.
For versatility though the 100-400 is very hard to beat.
Its heavy, but not that heavy. I handheld the 100-400 and 1DMk2 for a constant 3 to 4 hours straight, and while heavy, it works very well, although the swallows still get the better of me everytime.
I really like the push pull, but then again I set mine and lock it to whatever I need at the time, that way its whatever lens you want it to be.

One of mine with this combo.....

The 7D + 100-400 L works pretty good for me -

larrycumba wrote in post #14568366
Opinions on how this combo would work. Looking to use it for birding. Looking for reach and this should do it. Wide open at 400 would the sharpness be up to par? Thought about the Sigma 150-500 but keep reading it is soft. That's the last thing I need.

As far as the Sigma being soft- I'd almost bet that most of them don't know how to use it correctly, or are in too low of light, don't know what they are doing, or maybe even are expecting too much out of their gear. Point here, take it with a grain of salt.

So you want a dust pump, eh ?

Since my original post I bought the 100-400. Like it but still want more reach. Bought the sigma 150-500 and like it also but at 500 it really needs a tripod unlike the 100-400. Just my experience.

larrycumba wrote in post #14860146
Since my original post I bought the 100-400. Like it but still want more reach. Bought the sigma 150-500 and like it also but at 500 it really needs a tripod unlike the 100-400. Just my experience.

And this is why many of us have bank accounts that are slowly growing...so we can, one day, afford one of the super teles.

Viva-photography wrote in post #14852318
-the 100-400 is huge and heavy. would this ever deter you from taking it somewhere?
-you'll want a good tripod to hold this combo or your wrists will be very sore at the end of the day

Having shot with a 100-400 for many years I would have to disagree with you there. And having recently bought a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS I think your case is even weaker.

More seriously, with a Black Rapid strap, or similar, I am happy to cart the 100-400 around all day long at the zoo, for example, with a 1D3 hanging off the end and I really don't notice any issue with the weight. In fact I did that quite recently, and had a 5D2 and 135/2 hanging from the other shoulder - I have a DR2 double strap. I guess it is what you get used to.

Even the Sigma, which feels like it weighs a ton to simply lift it, is pretty drama free when suspended from a Black Rapid. So far I've only used it when walking the dog, which means between 1-2 hours at a time, I have no discomfort with respect to the weight or bulk.

When it comes to packing for travel I have no concerns taking the 100-400 with me.

Here's an unedited 100% crop from my 7D and 100-400....

Love my combo! I use it for wildlife and sports and have really enjoyed it. Great lens for the 7D.

This is my most-used combo. Absolutely no regrets or problems that can be attributed to the lens. All my problems are behind the viewfinder.