7Dii or 100-400II?

huntersdad wrote in post #17370445
If you think you'll live at 400

...and will never feel the need for IS.

Also an excellent point. Of course, SS required for bif supercedes IS.

huntersdad wrote in post #17370539
Also an excellent point. Of course, SS required for bif supercedes IS.

Still very handy for bop, bsa and bs (birds on perches, birds standing about and birds swimming) without a tripod.

I don't know, ..How can you own a lens for hours and say you were always at 400mm,... wish you lived around here because I'd love a deal on a 100-400 markII. And I don't know anyone how cant use IS at some point,...unless your the kind of shooter how just wants to get a shot and I don't think thats the case around here. I don't know about you guys but my shooting changes from spring to fall and winter, there's a hole story right there with the light the way it is most winter days. I can say if you shoot wild life human or critter you can use IS.

Pondrader wrote in post #17370745
I don't know, ..How can you own a lens for hours and say you were always at 400mm,... wish you lived around here because I'd love a deal on a 100-400 markII. And I don't know anyone how cant use IS at some point,...unless your the kind of shooter how just wants to get a shot and I don't think thats the case around here. I don't know about you guys but my shooting changes from spring to fall and winter there a hole story right there with the light the way it is most winter days. I can say if you shoot wild life human or critter you can use IS.

For me (note these two words), the 400 range is too short for almost anything I do. The one exception is shooting ducks out of a duck blind, where 400 is perfect and easily manageable. For those situations, the shutter speeds required will be 1/1000 or higher, which effectively negates the need for IS on either of my bodies. In situations where I want to shoot slower, I have a 600II - which has IS.

Additionally, having had the lens 3 weeks, having used it birding, the first thing that happened when I took it out of the bag and put it on a body was it got lock at 400. For where I shoot regularly, 400 gets you wide shots of groups of ducks. You get nothing more unless a flock swings close to shore and then I have the 600 ready.

again, for me and how I shoot, I see no sense in having $2200 in a lens that is going to be used at 400 consistently. I'll take the prime at 95% and pocket the cash. Your uses and mileage may, and probably do, vary.

And for people, I have a 70-200II. Couldn't give it up as it's too good.

hollis_f wrote in post #17370547
Still very handy for ..., bsa .....

My mind is too quick and really BAD. My first thought was" bird sitting on ass".

huntersdad wrote in post #17370801
again, for me and how I shoot, I see no sense in having $2200 in a lens that is going to be used at 400 consistently. I'll take the prime at 95% and pocket the cash. Your uses and mileage may, and probably do, vary.

Brad, but you would agree that the new 100-400 is an excellent lens that produces great IQ, correct? Otherwise you wouldn't have recommended to Fred (on another forum) to sell his primes and get the 100-400. It's just not right for you.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17371339
Brad, but you would agree that the new 100-400 is an excellent lens that produces great IQ, correct? Otherwise you wouldn't have recommended to Fred (on another forum) to sell his primes and get the 100-400. It's just not right for you.

Absolutely on all points. Great lens with huge upside, just not for me.

huntersdad wrote in post #17370445
I'm going to buck the trend a little here. I just got the 7d2 and sold my 100-400II. Reason? My 100-400II lived at 400 and I wasn't willing to let it replace my 70-200II. Given that it lived at 400, why have all that money tied up in that lens? Sold it and will be adding a 400 5.6 - 95% of the quality, below 50% of the cost. If you think you'll live at 400, give it good consideration.

Makes perfect sense. I sold my 400 5.6, and immediately regretted.

When you sold the 400mm 5.6. What did you replace it with??

I sold it to replace with 100-400 ii, but after trying the 100-400 ii, I decided that it is not worth for me to pay another $1300 to upgrade. Now I need a 400mm and I am still considering 100-400 ii. If I go back and buy another 400 5.6 it will be a very funny loss.

Too funny, I would kill to have the 100-400mm markII. Here where I live I can be shooting Moose at 100mm in the morning and birds at 400 with the 1.4III in the afternoon. I don't think I could use the fixed 400mm in the same manner of shooting that I do. I do at time let them get a bit close.

I have a 70-300L and a 400 f/5.6L. The 400 works most of the time for me but sometimes, the wading birds are so close, I can't get them in the frame without switching to the 70-300L.

I'll have my 100-400ii in February, if they are readily available by then. I suspect I'll end up selling either the 70-300L or the 400..... we'll see. There are other factors at play for me, including whether I like how well a 1.4X teleconverter works on the 100-400ii. I've seen some stellar photographs posted here with the 1.4X... but I'll have to prove it out in my surroundings with my 7D2.

Well I have now returned from Japan the proud new owner of............ Nothing.

Couldn't make up my mind. God damn it!

I am so tempted by the 5d3 that it has prevented me buying anything. I need to get my hands on one, probably by renting one, to see if I can live with the reach loss.

Will keep post updated if I can get my finger out of my butt and take action

if you shoot bugs and butterflies isn't a macro lens more suitable ?

Try to get a % of what Iso is used. If your always in the lower region of ISO usage you may find the 100-400mk2 to be a great choice for your outdoor shooting. Your 7d will do a good job at that task.

If you want to increase your entire scope of photography (major upgrade in IQ) from family documentation, social gatherings, events and casual wildlife you may find the 5dmk3 is quite a universal machine. You'll take a hit on FOV compared to your crop but it just depends on how much wieght you want to put your body towards wildlife.

You have the itch to upgrade both. New lens is sharper and fresh compared to the old tech 100-400mk1. You will benefit with a new lens. One the other hand you with a 5d3 you'll benefit general IQ improvements across the board with any lens you own that is compatible with FF. Generally any Mk2 version of canon's latest offerings usually is a vast improvement over the older gen.

If you rent a 5d3 and get a feel for its IQ and high iso performance I think you may draw you to FF. This would be a massive jump compared to your current 7d. If your the sort that thinks the IQ of the 7d and 100-400mk1 is "good enough" for your subjective viewing with "your" eyes then jumping 100-400Lmk2 will be a a noticeable jump in IQ compared to your older 100-400. Going from 7d to 7dmk2 is not a huge jump compared to 7d to 5dmk3.