Need guidance on telephoto!

Hello all

I've been using a version 1 500 f4 successfully for a while now, mated to either my 5D3 or 1D3. I primarily shoot wildlife and motorsport (plus landscapes, but they're not affected by this decision!).
In 2017, Canon are due to stop support for the version 1 500 which worries me a bit because if I get a problem, I could end up with a very heavy expensive paper weight.

Canon have really confused me by releasing the 7D2 and 100-400ii. Both get rave reviews and I can see a place for them in my bag but it would have to be at the cost of my 500. I suppose I'm asking if anyone else has had the same thoughts as me.....has anyone moved from FF and a 500 to the 7D2 and 100-400? What did you think?

Thanks in advance.....

nellyle wrote in post #17463289
Hello all

I've been using a version 1 500 f4 successfully for a while now, mated to either my 5D3 or 1D3. I primarily shoot wildlife and motorsport (plus landscapes, but they're not affected by this decision!).
In 2017, Canon are due to stop support for the version 1 500 which worries me a bit because if I get a problem, I could end up with a very heavy expensive paper weight.

Canon have really confused me by releasing the 7D2 and 100-400ii. Both get rave reviews and I can see a place for them in my bag but it would have to be at the cost of my 500. I suppose I'm asking if anyone else has had the same thoughts as me.....has anyone moved from FF and a 500 to the 7D2 and 100-400? What did you think?

Thanks in advance.....

Heya,

Most people either need the 500 F4, or a 100-400. One is faster and takes TC's for more range while still being good wide open or a stop down or so. The other is for hand holding and having more versatility. If you're worried about the 500 F4 becoming a non-supported lens, do you really think someone would buy it knowing this information at any kind of good price on your end? I certainly wouldn't. I'm seeing the 500 F4 IS going for around $4~5k here and there in good shape. Knowing it's non-supported and you're buying as-is glass that cannot be fixed by Canon? I'd not pay that price, and would expect a deeper discount. So on your end, selling the 500 F4 you could gain the 7D2 & 100-400 II for the sale of your 500 F4 out right. But is it worth it really? That's up to you. To me, it would not be. You're not really gaining any real big advantage over your 5D3 and 1D3, but you keep the advantage of having 500mm that is F4, allowing lower light and lower ISO values. Or a physical 700mm at F5.6, again, longer and keeping the ISO values lower. It's still longer than the 400 on a 1.6x crop is. But then there's the thought of hand holding versus not.

I'd personally rather have the 500 F4 than the 100-400 zoom of any flavor. And between the 7D2 and 5D3, I'd rather have the 5D3 as an "all around" camera and the 1D3 for trekking in the wild and nasty environments and wanting fast FPS. You already have them so it doesn't cut into your budget.

So again it really comes down to you wanting a more versatile, portable setup. Or whether you want he longer, faster setup. The 7D2 and 100-400 II would be the portable, versatile setup. The 500 F4 (with TC option) and 5D3 would be the faster (aperture; focus) that isn't as portable or handholdable, but is in my opinion the better overall setup for wildlife (greatly depends on what you're shooting obviously, but low light is something I'd put a lot of favor towards, and physical reach over crop).

I say that as someone who routinely shoots 1D2 and a 600mm.

Very best,

Much as I like the 7D2 and the new 100-400 looks very good, this combination is simply not going to live up to a 5D3 and a 500 F4 IS in practical situations. Whilst you would gain portability, with the 7D2 + 100-400 your existing gear will have significantly better IQ and ISO performance. Additionally your existing lens is 1 stop faster and 100mm longer.
Remember that your 500 will only become a paperweight after the spare parts have run out and only then if it breaks down - we could be quite old by that time!

Thanks for the replies.

I suppose you're both right, I'm better sticking with what I have. I have been offered a very good price for my 500 from a dealer, that's what got me thinking of my options.
Perhaps I'll look at adding a 70-300L to have set up on a body for if anything comes in close!

Do you have the option of going for the 500mm f/4L II? It's ridiculously expensive, but I've seen your photos. It would be money well invested.

No chance unfortunately.

Thanks for the (if I'm reading it right!) compliment!

I'm considering adding the new 100-400 to my kit.
I think it complements the 500 quite nicely.
IMO you should keep the 500 & start saving for the 100-400.

nellyle wrote in post #17464868
No chance unfortunately.

Thanks for the (if I'm reading it right!) compliment!

You read it right! It was a compliment. You have nice work.

Thanks!

My two cents,, I don't think anyone should down play the new tech unless they have used the hardware themselves. Ive used and seen the 500mm Ive seen the real world noise on the 5DIII shooting in the wilds, and now the 100-400L II and the 7DmarkII together ....Awesome . If your the guy who runs around your country side..looking in the fields and bush for the critters we all chance every year portability can be big. I could post up dozens of images using both peaces of the new hardware with the 1.4III. I can tell you they work like no other compact setup I've ever seen. The low light of the 7DII must be tried before one can decide if its good enough for you. Ive been accused of being pretty picky and when I get my job done so do they. As did my other cameras and lenses. If I was you I would go find someone with the the new setup and give it a go,...You know what the stuff you got can do. Don't let speculation and maybe's drive your quest for the best setup for you. I think I have posted a ton of images for people to see what Ive been able to do with it. Most of what happens with your images is you...not the gear your tote. I really like being able to put it on the other seat beside me when Im driving around place to place. and at 560mm with the 1.4III your there...yes the 500mm 600mm are super lenses but harder all round to wield truth.

Then again you may setup in front of a feeder and shoot then a big sense on a big tripod would be cool but when your dudy calls and said theres a bear on his back deck trashing the feeder ...well give me the 7DmarkII and the 100-400L II with the 1.4III in my pocket just incase. Or maybe just go shoot birds down at your local swamp...Im gona tell you Im happy with just a few lbs and would not be out gunned shooting Moose this next fall at longer distances because the 500mm and a FF will not get there any faster.

This is Iso 1000 at f7.1 1/640 i took last thursday, So I guess its all how you look at it and what you shoot. and I think this setup works way better in the dark than in the light and thats what I was after when I but my money down. But hey thats just my thoughts My flickr is full of what I have been doing since Oct 31 when I picked up the 7DmarkII

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ruKB​DU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rdph​KJ

Nice shot Pondrader!
However a few of months ago I was shooting next to a guy who tests gear for Canon. He was using a 7D2 on a Canon 200-400 F4 so I started picking his brains on both the camera and lens. Inevitably, as we are in South Wales, the light went pants and he packed up as he ran out of light with his F4 lens wide open. Admittedly I use a 1DX but I was still shooting my 800mm F5.6 at 1/1000 and F8 - and the ISO that I was using was within the capabilities of the 5D3 that the OP already has let alone the 1DX.
The 7D2 is a fine camera by any standards but, like all APSC cameras with high MP, it's ISO capabilities are limited. If the OP is only using ISO up to 1600 and doesn't mind a touch of PP then the 7D2 is a very good choice. If they want/need to shoot at significantly higher ISO and (like me can't be bothered with much PP) then they already have a better camera.
Just my 2p.
Please feel free to disagree as I often come to different conclusions than other photographers - I just say it as I find it.

johnf3f wrote in post #17465049
Nice shot Pondrader!
However a few of months ago I was shooting next to a guy who tests gear for Canon. He was using a 7D2 on a Canon 200-400 F4 so I started picking his brains on both the camera and lens. Inevitably, as we are in South Wales, the light went pants and he packed up as he ran out of light with his F4 lens wide open. Admittedly I use a 1DX but I was still shooting my 800mm F5.6 at 1/1000 and F8 - and the ISO that I was using was within the capabilities of the 5D3 that the OP already has let alone the 1DX.
The 7D2 is a fine camera by any standards but, like all APSC cameras with high MP, it's ISO capabilities are limited. If the OP is only using ISO up to 1600 and doesn't mind a touch of PP then the 7D2 is a very good choice. If they want/need to shoot at significantly higher ISO and (like me can't be bothered with much PP) then they already have a better camera.
Just my 2p.
Please feel free to disagree as I often come to different conclusions than other photographers - I just say it as I find it.

I agree John its all comes down to the guy I think. Maybe you should have picked up that camera and give a try, most of my shooting is close shooting as the bush is so dense,.. by that I mean 150 feet or less. Back in January I was shooting with a friend shooting the 1Dx and that thing was banging so loud all the game for 2 miles got up and left. and I had absolutly no want to be shooting it,..so I guess I'm over the lens envy thanks to the 100-400markII .... it gets the job done hand held as the images you see above.

So there.... we have missed this guy up good. Ill shoot with you even if your shooting that big loud 1Dx and muffin and puffin after the 45 min hike in.

Pondrader wrote in post #17465065
I agree John its all comes down to the guy I think. Maybe you should have picked up that camera and give a try, most of my shooting is close shooting as the bush is so dense,.. by that I mean 150 feet or less. Back in January I was shooting with a friend shooting the 1Dx and that thing was banging so loud all the game for 2 miles got up and left. and I had absolutly no want to be shooting it,..so I guess I'm over the lens envy thanks to the 100-400markII .... it gets the job done hand held as the images you see above.

So there.... we have missed this guy up good. Ill shoot with you even if your shooting that big loud 1Dx and muffin and puffin after the 45 min hike in.

We can only speak from our own experiences and observations, and we all have different expectations!
I love your comments on the noise the 1DX makes. I found the noise quite embarrassing, especially when I noted the looks from other photographers! Fortunately the only reaction that I have had from wildlife was a Vixen who looked back at me to see what all the racket was and gave me a lovely pose in the process. Having said that I wouldn't use it in Machine Gun mode at a wedding! The local Kingfishers simply ignore me at 20 feet - I know that because my 800 won't focus any closer!

I don't think we have messed the OP up at all. You have given your observations on the performance of the 7D2 + 100-400 Mk2 combination which, incidentally, looks pretty good to me. I feel that the OP is better off with the 500mm + 5D3 combination that they already have. These are our two opinions/experiences that, hopefully, will inform the OP's final choice. Note I must get my hands on a 100-400 Mk2 to try as I am hearing lots of good things about it.

Incidentally I did try that 7D2 and one other and I like them! Small, light, responsive and quick. Perhaps I am more demanding or, more likely, the light in South Wales is rubbish but I prefer the 5D3 and 1DX for my personal uses, just me!

why not the 5d3 + 100-400l II? yeah I get that you have to crop but i'd rather do that if I were shooting in low light than use a cropper.

that looks pretty good. how does iso 3200-6400 look?