7d needs more zoom

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

bk2life wrote in post #17004653
now add in the crop factor..

WHY? Do you also use a so-called "full-frame" camera and have a need to compare field of view between that and your 7D? That's about the only reason to use "crop factor" math. You should ONLY be considering actual focal lengths.

A combination of a lens with an extender behind it such as a 200mm lens with a 1.4x extender is actually a 280mm lens. Adding "crop factor" math to that is downright silly.

Its a shame tbh that more people in their example photos, of birds especially, dont mention the aproximate distance and how much, if it all they are croped. I think this would help much more than all the talk of fields of view, crop factor etc etc. to the people considering buying a lens at longer focal lengths.

The crop factor to me is a factor with lenses and shutter speed to handhold at these longer lengths.

Its seems to me as a newb the debates on lenses at 400 to 600 seems to boil down to this

Tamron: Sharp if stopped down and/or at a lower focal length better than the Sigma.

Sigma 150 to 500: Same as the Tamron with the stopped down and lower focal. Probaly not worth upgrading to the Tamron (arguments ensue)

Canon 100 to 400: Better than the Sigma. Arguments ensue when compared with the Tamron at 400mm. Tamron better over 400 obviously.

Canon 400 5.6 (suprised noones mentioned it) best image quality at 400 of the lot no IS.

Various other lenses including some way more expensive, extenders plus the Sigma 50 to 500 that noone can really Pigeon hole in. Gabes pics with the Sigma 300 with an extender make me think about saving for it a lot.

Check peoples sigs to see if they are giving unpartial advice. Also if something costs €800 and something else costs half that much again or even double it is not really at the end of the day just a little more.

bk2life wrote in post #17000880
In all honesty the size doesn’t matter....

I can't believe nobody's jumped on this yet. What's wrong with you people?

MalVeauX wrote in post #17004723
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.

but he's never said he wants to shoot wildlife...he just wants longer than 55mm

I have been very happy with my 100-400 for the last 6 years.

DreDaze wrote in post #17005045
but he's never said he wants to shoot wildlife...he just wants longer than 55mm

bk2life wrote in post #17000880
I’m lookin to gain some more reach and am looking at 150-600 tamron, or the canon 70-200 with a 1.4 or 2 extender to gain the reach, and have a smaller lens that can be carried a bit easier.

He clearly is interested in the longest he can find under $2k. Per the OP.

Dunno where you're getting 55mm.

Doesn't matter if he wants to shoot Wildlife or not. Regardless of that, someone looking at 600mm wants reach. And regardless of subject, there's never enough reach for someone who's looking to get this much. Ever.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17005081
He clearly is interested in the longest he can find under $2k. Per the OP.

Dunno where you're getting 55mm.

Doesn't matter if he wants to shoot Wildlife or not. Regardless of that, someone looking at 600mm wants reach. And regardless of subject, there's never enough reach for someone who's looking to get this much. Ever.

Very best,

The only lens he has is the 17-55mm...if he doesn't have any experience with longer focal lengths than he probably doesn't know how much he needs

If he's just looking to take closer shots of his kids in the backyard, then he doesn't need to lug around one of the longer telezooms

DreDaze wrote in post #17005208
The only lens he has is the 17-55mm...if he doesn't have any experience with longer focal lengths than he probably doesn't know how much he needs

If he's just looking to take closer shots of his kids in the backyard, then he doesn't need to lug around one of the longer telezooms

His first sentence involves the 600mm lens.

I get your point. But you're shying away from the heart of the matter, which is 600mm.

Even a novice would look at a big 600mm lens and not think "I need this for my kids in the backyard." Come on.

Very best,

Well at the minimum, per the OP, the search is for 280mm or more. That much can be gleaned as a requirement from the post, regardless of the subject material being captured.

The 70-300L offers great IQ, versatility, portability, and is long enough on APS-C to be used for birding when conditions are good. Hence why I chose it myself

Guys and gals, thanks for the advice, concerns and comments. I like my money. I like to spend my money on things I’ll keep for some time to come.
For the next year I’m sitting on a military base in afg. Nothing is close, and from the back of a chinook its even further away.
My point is, 400, 600, 2000 mm (!) for 2k or under is what I am looking at.
Birds, both with feathers and afterburners, is what I’ll be shooting, along with old decaying Russian military equipment, and some afghan kids playing in the local water hole..

That being said, which will last longer, the sigma or the tamron. And where can one of these be ordered from this side of the world, as B&H wont ship to an APO..

Thanks for comments!

bk2life wrote in post #17006715
Guys and gals, thanks for the advice, concerns and comments. I like my money. I like to spend my money on things I’ll keep for some time to come.
For the next year I’m sitting on a military base in afg. Nothing is close, and from the back of a chinook its even further away.
My point is, 400, 600, 2000 mm (!) for 2k or under is what I am looking at.
Birds, both with feathers and afterburners, is what I’ll be shooting, along with old decaying Russian military equipment, and some afghan kids playing in the local water hole..

That being said, which will last longer, the sigma or the tamron. And where can one of these be ordered from this side of the world, as B&H wont ship to an APO..

Thanks for comments!

Can't you have someone stateside order it and ship it to you?

Okay, I shot a bit with 70-200 MKII w/Kenko 2x this week. Here are a couple, I call these "Simpler Times". Not all that terrible for a makeshift 120-400mm f5.6 lens.

bk2life wrote in post #17006715
Guys and gals, thanks for the advice, concerns and comments. I like my money. I like to spend my money on things I’ll keep for some time to come.
For the next year I’m sitting on a military base in afg. Nothing is close, and from the back of a chinook its even further away.
My point is, 400, 600, 2000 mm (!) for 2k or under is what I am looking at.
Birds, both with feathers and afterburners, is what I’ll be shooting, along with old decaying Russian military equipment, and some afghan kids playing in the local water hole..

That being said, which will last longer, the sigma or the tamron. And where can one of these be ordered from this side of the world, as B&H wont ship to an APO..

Thanks for comments!

It's taking people in the states a couple months to get the tamron 150-600mm...so it's not going to be the easiest lens to acquire...at least not right now

i'm not sure about getting things to where you are at, but at least the sigma 150-500OS is available just about everywhere

Here is the 70-200 at different focal lengths and TCs.

70mm