7d needs more zoom

what are you planning to use it for...maybe you really don't need 400-600mm anyways...in which case picking up a 70-200mm would make sense...all depends on your subject choice

bk2life wrote in post #17002399
now it comes down to sigma or tamron..

FWIW... I have owned both at the same time. I kept the Tamron and sold the Sigma. But, honestly, there isn't one single thing the Tamron does better, or that I like better, except it goes to 6 and the Sigma only went to 5.

And, in fact, in some ways I liked the Sigma better. It handled better for me, was just easier to get zoomed quickly, felt a bit better balanced, the MF ring was smoother (I use it often to touch up in LV). Might have made the difference in getting a shot or two, maybe. But, IQ was, to my eyes, the same. I know charts show the Tamron better, but I looked at my own 100% crops from both lenses on the same subjects till my eyes were ready to bleed and I could see no difference.

So, anyway, my opinion, based on owning both, in your position, if all I could get was the Sigma, that would be just fine. I wouldn't sweat the Tamron at all.

If both are on the table in front of you though, well, you know, the Tamron goes to 6...

- DAA

[QUOTE=tkbslc;17003114​]Not very comparable is it? 70-200 with a 1.4x is 280mm.QUOTE]

now add in the crop factor..

[QUOTE=bk2life;1700465​3]

tkbslc wrote in post #17003114
Not very comparable is it? 70-200 with a 1.4x is 280mm.QUOTE]

now add in the crop factor..

Since the crop factor is constant, and applies to any lens or lens+tc, it doesn't have to be considered.

[QUOTE=TeamSpeed;17004​696]

bk2life wrote in post #17004653
it doesn't have to be considered.

but..

70-200 on a 7d would give a focal length of 320mm and with a 1.4 con a 448mm field of view

Heya,

200mm is not enough reach.
400mm is not enough reach.

Trust me, there's never enough reach, when it comes to wildlife.

I'm at 600mm on APS-C right now, and it's enough for somethings, but not enough for many things even still.

Get the longest lens you can afford and manage to use. Do not sacrifice true reach trying to fiddle with TC's and stuff and making a little 200mm into something it's not. You will not get the same quality as a true 400mm or 600mm lens with a 200mm lens.

200mm~250mm on APS-C seems great on paper until you get out there and actually try to do wildlife with it, that isn't just large animal wildlife. The moment you feel 400mm on APS-C, you'll start to wonder how you ever bothered with 200mm. And when you feel 600mm on APS-C, you'll wonder how you ever survived on less, but will still want more.

This is an uncropped image of a big grand daddy cotton mouth. No way I was getting near it. This is at 600mm. I was at the minimum focus distance of the lens.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obYX​2D

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oa8c​fy

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oacU​Uv

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o9Us​Ue

MalVeauX, lens talk aside, it is amazing how you find all the wildlife to shoot.

[QUOTE=bk2life;1700469​8]

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17004696
but..

70-200 on a 7d would give a focal length of 320mm and with a 1.4 con a 448mm field of view

And his comment was in relation to a 600mm (which you removed from your quote), so you would apply the same to that 600mm and end up with the same relative disparity.

So 200/280 vs 600 (considering focal lengths don't change with a crop) or 320/448 vs 960 equivalent FOV on a 7D, the disparity is still there, which was the original point.

Now to give you an idea of what that 1.4 will give you, here is a 300mm with a 1.3 crop applied. Just imagine the bottom is with a 300mm and the top is with a 1.3x on 300mm. It isn't much is it? Go back to 200mm and it will seem less.

Sibil wrote in post #17004745
MalVeauX, lens talk aside, it is amazing how you find all the wildlife to shoot.

I live right on top of a big swamp area (the Suwanee river in Florida), so I go through the Lower Suwanee Reserve which is all marsh land. And I otherwise frequent my favorite rural town of Cedar Key, which is a clamming community in the dirtiest part of the Gulf of Mexico, so less people go there, which means more wildlife literally in the street (like that Osprey just eating lunch on someone's deck as people walk by or drive by).

Very best,

Heya,

On topic, tomorrow, I'll go to a local marsh prairie and if there's a nice Heron or something, I'll see about doing a 200mm, 400mm and 600mm comparison so that folk can see the relative field of view differences. I'll try and make note of my distance to target (estimated of course).

Very best,

If you wanted to be complete, you could show these focal lengths.

200
280 (w 1.4x)
400 (w 2x)
500 (for sigma, or those with some cash)
600 (for tamron, or those with lots of cash)

Love my 70-300L IS... comparatively 'portable'

Oh, the age old debate from 2011 on

The weight of a 70-200L f2.8 MKII IS or a 1.4x 98-280L f4 IS or a 2x 140-400L f5.6 IS

vs

The size and weight of a 70-300L f4 - f5.6 that isn't compatible with any Canon TC, and with a 1.4x Kenko may not AF on many camera bodies

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17004780
If you wanted to be complete, you could show these focal lengths.

200
280 (w 1.4x)
400 (w 2x)
500 (for sigma, or those with some cash)
600 (for tamron, or those with lots of cash)

Maybe in the fall I will do that.

For now, it's about 95 degrees F from 10am to 8pm these days here in Florida. Freaking awful to be out in. I go early morning to do my wildlife (5:30am to 9:30am tops). Then I scurry home to AC to hide. Otherwise, late evening (7pm to 9:30pm) stuff for golden hour, sunset, landscape, etc. Right now, working from 10am to 7pm is miserable outside in Florida.

I can, however, probably do a quick single target shot of a live subject in context, of a big blue Heron or Egret tomorrow, at all focal lengths on the 150-600 just to have field of view reference on APS-C at 18MP.

I'll use a tripod. I normally handhold my 600mm and walk swamps & trails. I'll see about taking my tripod so I can quickly frame up, and just do all the focal length stops quickly so that the subject stays relatively the same. I'll do something real world, that is hard to walk up close to, where it matters to have serious reach, like a spooky waterfowl in a prairie.

Maybe one of these little guys will be out hunting in the morning:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nTLt​re

MalVeauX wrote in post #17004810
Maybe in the fall I will do that.

For now, it's about 95 degrees F from 10am to 8pm these days here in Florida. Freaking awful to be out in. I go early morning to do my wildlife (5:30am to 9:30am tops). Then I scurry home to AC to hide. Otherwise, late evening (7pm to 9:30pm) stuff for golden hour, sunset, landscape, etc. Right now, working from 10am to 7pm is miserable outside in Florida.

I can, however, probably do a quick single target shot of a live subject in context, of a big blue Heron or Egret tomorrow, at all focal lengths on the 150-600 just to have field of view reference on APS-C at 18MP.

Very best,

For doing this kind of test, it is almost better to use an inanimate object far enough away, so that folks aren't distracted by differences in bird position, etc. I also like to give a 50mm perspective first to show what the scene looks like normally, then do the different focal lengths.

If I do this, I can only go up to 500mm, unless I add the 1.4x to the lens and set the Sigma to roughly 430ish (which is hard to guess at). We have another game this evening, and during the first hour of practice, I might have time to do this as well.