EOS 7D + 100-400mm for wildlife photography

MCAsan wrote in post #14805122
100-400 has been my main lens for two South African photo safaris and numerous trips out west. I rarely needed my 500mm. This shot was taken in June with 5DIII using 100-400, F8, and ISO 3200. Works for me.

Absolutely outstanding shot!

The 7D and the 100-400 are a great pair, but you cannot have a teleconverter if you want to have AF.

I am about to get the 400 f/5.6 as I dont really need the zoom, and am looking forward to haveing fast focusing and slightly better image quality. So you could always look into that lens

While I do not own the 100-400, I have used it multiple times and it is a GREAT lens.

You know you can't AF using a TC with the 400 f5.6 either right.

Yep, no AF with a lens doing smaller than F4.

AJCanon wrote in post #14806596
The 7D and the 100-400 are a great pair, but you cannot have a teleconverter if you want to have AF.

I cannot speak from experience but it seems that some members are having good luck with a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x: https://photography-on-the.net …1213132&highlig​ht=100-400

jm4ever wrote in post #14806874
You know you can't AF using a TC with the 400 f5.6 either right.

Yes I know that. I dont plan on using one. You would need the f/4 DO for that. I was just giving another option. I dont really like using TC as they can degrade your IQ

magoosmc wrote in post #14806904
I cannot speak from experience but it seems that some members are having good luck with a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x: https://photography-on-the.net …1213132&highlig​ht=100-400

Interesting

magoosmc wrote in post #14806904
I cannot speak from experience but it seems that some members are having good luck with a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x: https://photography-on-the.net …1213132&highlig​ht=100-400

I got sharp results even with my 2x kenko on the 100-400.

berlinfrank wrote in post #14804258
EOS 7D + 100-400mm -->640mm

Would this be a cheap way for a tele?

The alternative I see is

EOS 5D Mark III with 200-400mm --> 560mm

Has anyone some experience with the above combination? Especially with the maximum 400mm? How big do you judge the difference to the "EOS 5D Mark III with 200-400mm, and 1.4 extender"?

Thanks for any thoughts.

Best
Frank

As others have pointed out, the 200-400 isn't out yet, but you're comparing an ~$3k rig to an ~$15k rig. You get the 7D+100-400 for about the cost of a 5DIII body. Something closer would be the 5DIII + 2x TC + 120-300 f/2.8 Sigma. But even that is still more than twice the cost of the 7D + 100-400. For what they're talking about selling the 200-400 for, you could get a 70-200 f/2.8 II + 400 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC + 2x TC. And if you buy used, you can probably get a 300 f/2.8 as well.

exactly.

I shoot with a 60d (same sensor as 7d) and 100-400 almost exclusively. 99.9% of the photos on my Flickr site are from this combo since december.
Before that I used a t1i and 100-400.

you wont be disappointed in the combo and its about $10,000 less expensive than a 5d3 + rumored 200-400L.

it is very possible that the 5d3 + 100-400 would give results as good because the image quality may allow as much cropping. I havent personally tried it.

I dont think you could be sad either way. the zoom is very important for a wildlife lens as sometimes critters are very close and 400mm is too much. Most of the time you'll use it at 400 and its a great lens at that focal length too.

AJCanon wrote in post #14807022
I dont really like using TC as they can degrade your IQ.

Every magnification, whether done optically by an extender or by simply magnifying the print, will reveal more imperfections in the original lens you use. The advantage with the converter is that you are better able to see that you have focus where it should be whilst shooting (if things don't move so fast that you don't have any chance to do that). Reasonably the camera's AF sensor will also have something better to work with, since the image is magnified already on the AF sensor as well. At least if we presume you don't go from f/2.8 and high-precision AF to ordinary precision, due to the aperture loss.

I've tried using my 7D with the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF converter 1.4X III. The result is fully acceptable for publishing on the web, for example. I can see more shortcomings already in the bare use of my EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, not to mention if I put the extender on that lens. So having an excellent lens, as the 70-200 is, to start with makes a big difference.

berlinfrank wrote in post #14804466
My plan is going for the 7D & 100-400mm, if picture quality is fine.

The reasons are the following:

1.) Here I have a flexible zoom! (Of course 300mm 2.8 makes superb pics, but imagine a bear comes to close to you)
2.) Dont need to change lenses, so no "dust on the sensor"-problem
3.) it is lightweight! (Much lighter than taking the 200-400mm/1.4 Ext)
4.) I already own the 100-400mm, which I used with the Eos 5d Mark II!
5.) It is relatively cheap!

Only question mark is picture quality!

if you need 400mm in a zoom the 100-400 is obviously the best choice, you could wait until the 200-400 comes out but be prepared for a much higher price

archer1960 wrote in post #14804532
I've always preferred push-pull zoom; much faster than a rotating ring.

Ditto! I've been using trombone zooms for longer than digital cameras have existed. Twisty zooms were a novelty at one time.

I was a bit sceptical of the push-pull on the 100-400mm before I bought it, mainly due to some comments here, but I love the versatility of the lens and with my 7D I can get some great shots. With the 1.4x however forget about anything handheld.

100-400 and 7D are a great combo in great light. In Europe it is not going to be the best combo, I am affraid. European wildlife is shy, trust me, 500mm MINIMUM for most of my shooting here. Since your name is Berlin Frank I can only presume the European connection

7D at ISO 800 is your realistic limit for ISO if you intend prints or stock. ISO1600 for web stuff, at a push a resized shot down to 4-8MP, without cropping. So, you only have 400mm, you will need to crop on alot of subjects, especially small birds.

I you can afford the soon to be realeased 200-400 (just look at the pictures from Canons Olympic CPS shop, there are LOADS of them, they will release this soon!) then fine, but it will cost 10k+... cheaper would be 7D+300 2.8 + TCs... or used 500 f4....

That said, the 100-400 is still a favourite lens and delivers the goods when needed:

apersson850 wrote in post #14808089
Every magnification, whether done optically by an extender or by simply magnifying the print, will reveal more imperfections in the original lens you use. The advantage with the converter is that you are better able to see that you have focus where it should be whilst shooting (if things don't move so fast that you don't have any chance to do that). Reasonably the camera's AF sensor will also have something better to work with, since the image is magnified already on the AF sensor as well. At least if we presume you don't go from f/2.8 and high-precision AF to ordinary precision, due to the aperture loss.

I've tried using my 7D with the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF converter 1.4X III. The result is fully acceptable for publishing on the web, for example. I can see more shortcomings already in the bare use of my EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, not to mention if I put the extender on that lens. So having an excellent lens, as the 70-200 is, to start with makes a big difference.

THank you for the explination. Now it makes more sense to me.

I can see how starting out with a high quality lens can help.