7d needs more zoom

Heya,

So as promised, I applied 150-600mm onto a live subject, as I feel it gives a better sense of meaning when it comes to knowing what focal length you'll need for real world work. Most big telephotos are used for wildlife and things like that. Sure, someone uses it for something other than that. But most people interested in 600mm are either getting a telescope for DSO's, or are shooting wildlife and other things that are far away and not easy to get to.

For reference; this was shot on an APS-C sensor. I will always shoot 600mm on a crop.
I purposefully chose a large bird, about 80~100 feet away.
This bird is large enough that it does not fill the frame, at 600mm, even on an APS-C.
The point was to stress distance, and why it's critical to get more pixels on target and not just do heavy crops.
These images were quickly snapped to try and keep them very similar; not meant to be critical photographs. Consider them simply references of field of view to give an idea of what focal length for a distance might be needed for you.
I did the major focal length stop points on the lens. +/- a few mm, as I quickly zoomed and snapped.
These were done today at La Chua trail, Payne's Prairie.
These were shot in poor conditions, over water, on a super hot 90F day near noon.
These images are not cropped. RAW -> JPG, and text/marks.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm6​KN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obQT​Sk

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUng​Za

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm5​9S

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm4​Rh

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obLz​x9

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17008476
Here is the 70-200 at different focal lengths and TCs.

awesome!

MalVeauX wrote in post #17008530
I still stand that 400mm is the beginning of reach when it comes to wildlife in the wild.....Very best,

gorgeous!

these both are great shots, and really shows me how much im missing in the zoom section. im leaning towards the 70-200 but the 600 tam has amazing reach.

ugh.

If you are concerned about the reach and willing to spend considerable amount of money on a new lens, then do yourself a favor and try to test all the lenses you are thinking of before buying anything. So either rent or visit some places where people with telephotos tend to congregate and ask a few folks to let you have a look at their lenses. I would not sorely rely on a sample images posted on the internet. When I was looking for more reach myself, I went through numerous photos taken at different FLs and based on my findings, I once decided that 200mm will be just enough for birds...Then I went through phases when I wanted 70-300, followed by 100-400 and then luckily, just the day before I was going to place my order, I have come across the Tamron 150-600 (thanks POTN!). And now, on many occasions, even 600 mm is not enough for wildlife and other distant subjects.

The debate between 70-200 and 150-500 or 600mm is really down to what you want to shot. These are like two different worlds and it will be very hard to compromise here. Getting both is the way to go

As for the 400mm f/5.6. It is a great lens but for myself, not being able to zoom out below 400 would be a big issue.

Mag-1981 wrote in post #17010986
If you are concerned about the reach and willing to spend considerable amount of money on a new lens, then do yourself a favor and try to test all the lenses you are thinking of before buying anything. So either rent or visit some places where people with telephotos tend to congregate and ask a few folks to let you have a look at their lenses..

In Afghanistan?

Philihase wrote in post #17010995
In Afghanistan?

ahh, I see. In this case, let's hope the OP will not take my advice and stay clear of a band of guys with telephotos.

hi i have a couple of 100 -400 lens and have been pretty happy with them for reach on my 7 d etc or 600 d but ther is always the one or two times when some extra reach would have been great and i use an extender a 1.4 m 111 now and then with the pins taped - so a 100- 400 is ok for reach - but i have the tamron 150 - 600 on order and hopefully will have it by end july at the latest - so i guess that says something about having 500 or 600 available without the extender on
go the S 500 or T 600 if you really want that extra reach
cheer rob

Snydremark wrote in post #17001754
I've got the 150-600 and the 100-400 for my 7D; the Tamron is nice, and it's a nicely affordable way to get to 600 without pricing out a new car. However, for straight-up image quality in the final results, I still much prefer the 100-400.

Either way, they're both nice lenses and better ways to get out to that range without juggling TCs.

I agree, if you going for action and/or sports and image quality the 100-400 is a good choice but for (still) wildlife at 600mm the Tamron looks like a good value

60D
Canon 100-400
f5.6
400mm (cropped)
go Tribe!

thanks for all the replys, you guys rock!

First off, be safe over there.

I'm going to put this out mostly because the availibility of the new 150-600 is less than on the shelf ready for most people anywhere in the world. The 400/5.6 will take a 1.4 TC and autofocuses with a 5d3 or 1 series camera. If you are in good light and use a non reporting 1.4 TC, you could get it to work on your 7d at 560mm f/8.

Pro's:
The prime will be sharper and lighter (about half the weight) and you wouldn't have to wait for it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

Con's:
Loose ability to zoom, loose stabilization slightly more expensive.

Side note: Wouldn't it be great if they gave the 7d mk2 the ability to AF at f8 with Canon TC's like the 5D3 and 1 series?

FEChariot wrote in post #17021052
First off, be safe over there.
400/5.6

A prime is nice, but my biggest lens is 55mm. i need to be able to focus, a 400 prime would be not a good choice for me.

I’m leaning towards the 70-200 because of low light (i like to shoot low light) and it’ll easily take an extender.

FEChariot wrote in post #17021052
Side note: Wouldn't it be great if they gave the 7d mk2 the ability to AF at f8 with Canon TC's like the 5D3 and 1 series?

That would be great and a big positive to get the Mark II.