Lens upgrade for my 7D

[Gustaftoni]

Goood day everybody, I'm new here...


I'm writing to you gather some ideas on what would you do in my place.


I've bought my 7D bundled with the 18-135 and I have to say it's a whole new world compared to my old gear (won't tell you what it was because you'd laugh at me[:D] ). But I'm experiencing some issues which disappoint me - all are due to the lens, or so I suppose.


1. Sometimes I get front focused pictures, even in full daylight, portraying a standing still person wearing colorful clothes. Those should be the best conditions for the AF, right?


2. That lens lacks detail. My old gear gave me sharper results, at 10.1 MPx vs. the 7D's 18 MPx. I know the 7D is soft by itself, but I set sharpness to 3 as suggested in this site review. And if I shrink down the 7D's image to 10 MPX I get satisfying sharpness but insufficient image size. One of my main concerns is fine detail. A soft image is sometimes welcome, but it's a rare happening.


3. Shooting conditions. Which are various: I shoot mostly at people, often at landscapes, sometimes at flowers. Flowers and landscapes in daylight and (surprisingly) outdoors. People in every light condition: full daylight, rainy daylight, before dawn and after dusk, indoors and outdoors, tungsten light, neon tube light, halogen light, whatever you may think off except candlelight for now (but it's not uncommon for me to get a campfire as main light source). That's one thing: I need to be able to shoot in low light. The 7D's high ISO range is fantastic in this regard, but still, lower ISO is better (unless you need to stop motion) and it's no good to own that option alone. Another concern is distance from the subject. If I want natural behaviour I have to go unnoticed most of the times, so I can't get too close. That's why I chose the 18-135 over the 15-85: extended tele range. But I need a decent wide end too for indoors group photos. I need something portable (2 lens is ok, but no more. It's a matter of where to put things and being ready to shoot, not of weight, I'm strong[H] ).


That's why I'm going to buy something else to put on that camera and after some thoughts I narrowed my choice to the 17-55 or the 15-85. Both are very high quality lenses, but none of them satisfies all my needs. I was thinking of adding a 580ex II, which would be mandatory on the 15-85 in the evening and anyway useful as a fill for campfire even on the 17-55. About the flash, I'd ask you about a good small diffusor.


Bottom line: which lens would you pick in my place? And which diffusor?


Thank you all in advance for sharing your opinion!

[neuroanatomist]

Hello, and welcome to the TDP Forums!



Sometimes I get front focused pictures, even in full daylight, portraying a standing still person wearing colorful clothes. Those should be the best conditions for the AF, right?


Should be good conditions for AF, yes. Have you performed AF testing and if needed, AF Microadjustment. That's one great feature of the 7D - the ability to calibrate the AF of each lens. See Roger's article,"This ("http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths)lens is soft ("http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths)" and ("http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths)other myths. ("http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths)



That lens lacks detail.
<div>Well, the optical quality of the EF-S 18-135mm is not stellar. It's a consumer-level zoom lens, meaning the optics are mediocre. The above AF issue may be a part of the problem - a slightly OOF image lacks sharpness. But you've got a mediocre lens, too.</div>
<div></div>
<div>
I need to be able to shoot in low light</div>


Then you need a faster lens (i.e. wider maximum aperture). The EF-S 18-135mm has a variable aperture - the longer the focal length, the narrower the max aperture. The constant f/2.8 of the EF-S 17-55mm is a big advantage.


If you really want to shoot by candlelight or a campfire (without flash), even f/2.8 is not enough. Consider a fast prime, e.g. the 50mm f/1.4. I can shoot by candlelight alone with my 7D andEF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]LII, and the 50mm f/1.4 is nearly as fast (and much, much cheaper).






Bottom line: which lens would you pick in my place? And which diffusor?





IMO, theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the best general purpose zoom lens for a 1.6x crop body like the 7D. Paired with a faster prime like the EF 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, you'll have a great combo.


You can get nice flash results with a 430EX II or 580EX II and a Sto-Fen OmniBounce, angled up to bounce off the ceiling.

[Sheiky]

compared to my old gear (won't tell you what it was because you'd laugh at me/emoticons/emotion-2.gif )


Must be Nikon then [6][:P]


+1 on John's advice. The 17-55 is just great! It would also suit your needs for portraiture far better than the 15-85. Mostly due to the constant aperture.

[Gustaftoni]

A little update: I micro adjusted the AF, but really little adjustment was needed: +1. The out of focus problem I'm experiencing happens sometimes, not in all shoots, and is far worse than +1. It's not frequent, but it can happen when you least expect it (good AF conditions) and the moment is gone. But - here's the good news - +1 gave a nice improvement to the fine details. It's not a mega difference, but it's noticeable. So, big thanks for giving me this advice.



you've got a mediocre lens


That's rude! I'm offended! (joking, I know that's true...)


After some considerations, if you agree, I'm going to pick the 17-55. But on the telephoto side, I'd consider the 70-200 f/4. The f/2.8 is way too big to carry around ready for a lens exchange. Do you recommend the IS version? I'd use it outdoors in sunny and cloudy days, nothing more. For sure a fast prime would help in "extreme" conditions - if there was a 35mm f/1.4 non-L I'd go for it, because of the price: I won't be using it so much. 50mm is a bit narrow, but much more affordable than the 35L, so I'm going for it. And it's small, so I can carry 3 lenses (although I'd use the 50 in opposite conditions to the 70-200: campfire and low light indoors)


So the shopping cart should look as follows:


EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM


EF 70-200mm f/4 USM


EF 50mm f/1.4 USM


That's quite a large amount of bucks. I wonder if I really need the 580ex II if I get those lenses.


Thanks for your advice...

[Sheiky]

I'm going to pick the 17-55.


Good choice!



But on the telephoto side, I'd consider the 70-200 f/4. The f/2.8 is way too big to carry around ready for a lens exchange. Do you recommend the IS version?


Depends a lot on what you shoot. If you're shooting sports, IS is not necessary. Else it could be handy in some occasions. Low-shutterspeeds. Low-light outside shots. You need to make sure when you don't have IS that you must have a shutterspeed high enough to eliminate your movement. General rule is 1/320 @ 200mm. It's also weathersealed which is nice. But it's far more expensive and the image quality is about the same: excellent! For the campfire shots it can achieve lower shutterspeeds than a 50mm prime would need to eliminate any camera-movement.



For sure a fast prime would help in "extreme" conditions - if there was a 35mm f/1.4 non-L I'd go for it


There's a Sigma 30mm 1.4.... ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx)A friend of mine has it and he's very happy with it. I personally don't like a 50mm prime on a crop-body. So see what you like or not. Put your current lens to 50, 30 and or 85 and see what suits you the best. Also if you want to do some portraits, I think most people would recommend the 85mm 1.8 over the 50 mm 1.4 on a crop-body.


Good luck!

[Gustaftoni]

Well I own a 17-55 now... and it's a big improvement indeed! I get the detail I was looking for and I can take nice pictures in low light without a tripod (a very useful object that I hate to carry around, displace, fold... it's too slow). I get almost no errors on focus (I got one this evening out of 361 photos).


When I exchanged the lens on my 7D, I felt the ensemble was much heavier with the 17-55, and it obviously was all front weight. I tought my camera was unbalanced with this lens, but my sensation turned into high-quality-feeling (and good comfort) as soon as I began shooting. AF is really fast and quiet. On the other hand, the IS start and stop noise is noticeable and not very pleasant. The focal length range is good for my own general purpose use but not enough for everything I'd do, but I knew this already.


I'm going to use the 17-55 extensively in the next two weeks and I'll try to understand what I'm not getting from it, then I'll ask you again for a friendly advice.


Thank you for now


See you soon!

[Sheiky]

Good idea!


Stay in touch and enjoy your time here [Y]

[peety3]

That's why I'm going to buy something else to put on that camera and after some thoughts I narrowed my choice to the 17-55 or the 15-85. Both are very high quality lenses [snip]





I disagree - I don't consider the 15-85 to be a "very high quality" lens. It ought to be less expensive than what it is.

[thekingb]

So the shopping cart should look as follows:


EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM


EF 70-200mm f/4 USM


EF 50mm f/1.4 USM






I own the 70-200 f/4 IS and 50 f/1.4 with a 7d that I recently acquired. Both have been excellent on the body, especially the 70-200. This IS is very helpful, especially when shooting at 200mm on a crop body.


If you don't need the f/2.8 on the general purpose lens, I'd go for the 24-105 f/4L....


Here's a shot I got at ISO 1600, f/1.8, 1/160s, handheld with the EF 50 f/1.4 on the7d body.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.45.77/nk.jpg

[Gustaftoni]

Hi to everybody!


Well, I'm back from my trips and experiments. I have to say, the 17-55 is really a good good lens. When I saw the first image from my journey at 100% size on my PC, I just said "What the...". The picture was nothing special, just a road with streetlamps in full daylight, but the sharpness and detail were astonishing, from the asphalt texture to the tip of the streetlamps. After about 1800 photos, I can tell this lens is superb, at least if coupled with a 7D. Detail is, as said, really fine. Fast aperture allows for decent (not excellent) pictures in the worst light conditions (including campfire and candlelight - yes, I finally shot in candlelight). With a monopod, you can shoot sharp images using a cheap torchlight as main light. You can catch stars' circular movement (you see bright short stripes) and shooting stars with a 30 secs exposure and a tripod. The 7D and the 17-55 can see many more stars than your eye. Hair and eyes are very detaliled and shiny. Colours are lifelike and there's no chromatic aberration. Halation is easily obtainable if you want it and often adds to your picture. Background blur is really nice even when stopped down (not to f/16 or you'll see eptagons). You sometimes get one or two flare artifacts in really bright daylight. The 7D balances well with this lens. It's not easy to go unnoticed using the 7D and a &Oslash;77mm lens. AF is very fast and accurate, and silent. Zoom range is fine for almost anything - cropping is a viable option with so sharp images. The 70-200 will do for distant subjects: the question is: which 70-200?

[Gustaftoni]

Uhm, it seems that part of this thread disappeared durning the Painful Server is Down Day... So i'm writing this to summarize the latest posts. We were debating about the next lens for my 7D, a telephoto zoom lens. We found, thanks to a very useful Internet page ( http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html , credits to neuroanatomist ("../members/neuroanatomist/default.aspx) for sharing this link), that I need a 400mm lens to frame more or less 3x2 metres being the subject 50 metres away. Being that the focal length I need, the 70-200s are out of the competition. The 100-400 seems to be the right lens for what I plan to do (catching single persons running outdoors during te day, being the worst light condition a cloudy late afternoon). I was wondering if are there alternatives, such as the Sigma 50-500 which was renewed lately. From what I understand, the Sigma has a wider range, but image quality is not as good. The Sigma would also fill the 55-100mm gap I have from my 17-55 (by the way, the 17-55 is as good as a lens can be... did I say that already?), but i's not a critical importance gap for my puropses - I can use the 17-55 @ 55mm and move closer, or ask the subject to come closer, or crop. Do other options exist than the 100-400 and the Bigma? What would you suggest? Thanks!


(Edited for grammar, and for credits to the fellow forum user which found the FOV calculator)

[neuroanatomist]

the fellow forum user which found the FOV calculator - can't remember who he was right now.


Me. [:)] Glad to help!



Do other options exist than the 100-400 and the Bigma? What would you suggest?


Other than the 'Bigma' (Sigma 50-500mm), Sigma also makes a couple of long zooms with narrower ranges that still cover 400mm, and are more compact than the Bigma - a 120-400mm and a 150-500mm. Tamron makes a 200-500mm zoom, and Tokina makes an 80-400mm zoom.


Of them all, I'd still suggest the Canon 100-400mm for both image and build quality.


--John

[btaylor]

I think the Canon 100-400mm would suit your needs. It's a fairly large lens in size, but you don't buy a DSLR to have a compact camera, you want the quality.


On a crop body I think you'd get more benefit from something in the 100-400mm range than one of the 70-200mm's so I think it's a good choice.


I'd stay clear of the Sigma 50-500mm. I've useda friend's(albeit on a sony body) and I wasn't impressed with the quality of images. Build quality is great, images not so great.


Ben.

[Gustaftoni]

It seems that Canon beats them all... Why doesn't Carl Zeiss make zoom lenses for Canon?


While I thank you for your contributions, could I ask for a 100% crop from a real picture taken through the 100-400 (with a 7D)?

[bob williams]

Here is a 100% crop of a photo I took with my 7D and 100-400. No Sharpening, no adjustments of any kind--other than the crop


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.23/roadrunner-100-crop.jpg

[Gustaftoni]

A perfect profile, would be good for showing the details on National Geographic.


Thanks, that's a good sample of what the 100-400 is capable of - and I must say I expected a little less sharpness, because of the 7D's sensor Px density. Could you tell which settings were used for that shot?

[bob williams]

Could you tell which settings were used for that shot?





Thanks,----ISO 800, 1/2000, F 5.6, handheld, no flash

[neuroanatomist]

While I thank you for your contributions, could I ask for a 100% crop from a real picture taken through the 100-400 (with a 7D)?


Here's one from me as well. Figured you might want a worst-case scenario - ISO 3200. This was taken on an early Spring afternoon on an overcast day. I was shooting birds flying overhead, and looked down to see this little guy on the shady bridge I was standing on, so I grabbed a shot without changing my settings. The relatively high shutter speed I was using for flying birds meant a high ISO - something you might run into shooting runners in the evening. There was no post-processing on this image - I was still shooting JPG at that point (have since changed to RAW only), so the image below is straight out of the camera (except cropping for an 8x10" print). Shooting info is:EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200.


Full image:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/4843589379_ccdf64efd0_b.jpg


100% crop:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4890887965_23f58b3878_b.jpg


Obviously, ISO 3200 results in a fair bit of noise on the 7D. But the detail is certainly there with the lens!


Hope that helps.


--John

[Gustaftoni]

Well, if that squirrel is a worst case sample, I think I'll get the 100-400 as soon as I can.


Apart from many other qualities, I chose the 7D for its high ISO performance also. I find the kind of noise produced by the 7D more pleasant than the one from other cameras.


Back to the squirrel, I wander what was he going to do with all that in his mouth. Didn't anybody tell him that it's more polite to chew keeping your lips shut?

[saturnia]

Hi to all,


I am new here, too... quite helpful forums. I use all those three lenses listed by Gustaftoni with my 7D very often. I am not sure but maybe my delayed comment still may help you.


EF 70-200 f/4 is great but I'd invest a few more bucks to get the newer version with IS, you won't regret that.


EF 50 f/1.4 is a superb lens for portrait, in paricular with a 1.6 crop cam like the 7D, it is great for video as it can be focused manually with good precision and is light enough for hand held video sequences. It's image quality is said to be not as good as the Sigma 50 mm/1.4 with open aperture but I am quite happy with it - the Canon lens is much lighter and more compact. If you stop it down to 5.6 and more it is tack sharp. I used it even sometimes for landscape photography.


EF-S 17-55 f/2.8... that's the only Canon lens in my collection that I both love and hate. Need to be careful as there are many fans of this lens out there. The pros are clear: versatile standard zoom range, very fast so you can get a nice background blur, very good IS so if you prefer available light photography you will appreciate that together with its fastness. Stopped down it is overall sharp but I really cannot see any more details when I use it with the 50D and with the 7D, so it cannot turn the 7D's sensor resolution fully in image details.


Quite an issue of the 17-55 is chromatic aberration - color fringes. In bright conditions sharp edges turn into sort of rainbows. Past year I had an extended e-mail correspondence with Bryan about this issue, I shot a test series with a Siemens star. Even stopped down to 5.6 it showed subtancial see color fringes at whereas my cheap 18-55 mm produced clean edges. Obviously Canon's engineers could not completely control CA in such a zoom ranging from wide angle to short tele, and using very big lenses (as a physicist I know that big lenses always produce a lot of CA and need an alaborated correction lens system). In practise you need to correct CA quite often during post processing (e.g. in DPP) if you shoot architecture, mountains or other objects with sharp edges in bright light - wheras landscapes or portrait works nicely.


Another issue is its famous dust problem. At least my lens collected such a layer of dust behind its front lens within one year that I'll send it better to Canon's service. Some dust specles do not affact image quality but from that much I expect to get closer to some visible effects (flares or at least loss of fastness).


So, overall, I'd recommend to think about EF 24-70 L as alternative and adding later a wide angle prime. That's more expensive, of cours, but the EF lens has the plus that you could use it later with a full frame body, too.

[Trowski]

Another issue is its famous dust problem. At least my lens collected such a layer of dust behind its front lens within one year that I'll send it better to Canon's service. Some dust specles do not affact image quality but from that much I expect to get closer to some visible effects (flares or at least loss of fastness).


I owned this lens for some time as well. I was very impressed with the pictures it took, but mine was a dust magnet as well. I know the dust doesn't really degrade the images it would take, but I'm far too OCD about my gear and it bothered me, so I actually cleaned the lens a couple of times myself. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZRN2mxajk ("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZRN2mxajk)) gives a great little tutorial of how to do it. I used toothpicks to pull up the ring around the lens, since the wood isn't hard enough to scratch the lens.I eventually ended up selling the lens when I bought a 5DII and the 7D became my backup/telephoto camera.



Well, if that squirrel is a worst case sample, I think I'll get the 100-400 as soon as I can.


A couple things you might want to be aware of with the 100-400mm: The lens is quite a bit larger than the others you probably have experience with. It's not an easy lens to take on hiking trips, camping, or anywhere where space or weight become issues. I know some might argue this with me, and really it's all personal preference, but I disliked the push/pull mechanism of this lens. It's also not weather-sealed, unlike most current L glass, so depending on what situations you're considering using the lens in, this is also a factor to keep in mind.


I own a 70-200 f/4 IS and am quite happy with it. I've used it for landscapes, people, flowers, etc. I've never used the non-IS version, but from what I understand the upgrade to the IS version is worth the significant increase in price. IS on a telephoto lens is just too valuable and I understand the build quality and image quality is better as well. 200mm might be a little on the short side for you, but for the same price as the 100-400mm you can buy the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 1.4x teleconverter. This would result in a 98-280mm f/5.6, and on your 7D would actually be 157-448mm. Still not the potential 160-640mm of the 100-400mm, but in a lighter, more versatile package. There's so many pixels on the 7D, cropping is definitely an option.


If it's not too late, for you I might recommend either the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 coupled with the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS + 1.4x teleconverter.

[saturnia]

A couple things you might want to be aware of with the 100-400mm: The lens is quite a bit larger than the others you probably have experience with. It's not an easy lens to take on hiking trips, camping, or anywhere where space or weight become issues. I know some might argue this with me, and really it's all personal preference, but I disliked the push/pull mechanism of this lens. It's also not weather-sealed, unlike most current L glass, so depending on what situations you're considering using the lens in, this is also a factor to keep in mind.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





If you can live with the restrictions of primes you could consider the EF 400 mm f/5.6 L USM as an alternative. I have both this one and the EF 300 mm f/4 L IS USM to add those two prime tele ranges to the 70-200 mm. The EF 400 mm is - for a tele lens - quite light, tack sharp already @ open aperture and great e.g. for birding. I need to be careful but some reviews I found in the net showed me clearly that this prime beats the 100-400 mm in sharpness @ the long tele end (see e.g. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml). And that's what I wanted to use it for. In particular, as the 18 MP APS-C sensor is crowded with small pixels and therefore has an extremely high resolution, I decided to go for this prime. I did not regret it.


The 400/5.6 is 100g lighter as the 100-400 zoom and I find it superb for handheld shooting. Another plus is its very fast and quite accurate USM drive that is much less prone to AF pumping as the 300/4 if you shoot an object in front of a very structured background (e.g. flying bird in front of trees). The only drawbacks are that it has no IS so you have to train a bit using it as the picture in the viewfinder is not so quite (but that goes quickly - its old school and people managed that before) and it is not fully weather sealed. On the other hand I used it in rain, snow, and never had any problems with it. It looks and feels like a slimmer but longer brother to the 300/4 but has a completely different characteristic. It is much better for action (paired with the 7D and 50D) as it does produced less defocused pictures than the 300. But has with 3.5 m shortest distance no macro capacity, whereas the 300/4 with 1.5 m and a magnification of 0.24 is really great for shy objects. At this macro distance, I really appreciate its IS, too, works quite nicely.


Here is an example I shot with the 400/5.6 and D7 combo (slightly cropped):


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5710.2010_5F00_05_5F00_15-Helgoland-Seehunde_5F00_MG_5F00_6989-Ausschnitt.jpg





And here is an example for action shooting with this combo (cropped). Iit is not a masterpiece in terms of photography, I know, but I am proud of it because it is very hard to shoot flying common murres - they a small and have to fly extremely fast because with their small wings the would fall like a stone. Another difficulty was that I shot it downwards from the bird rocks of the German island Heligoland so the 7D's AF really had to struggle with the sea surface as quite a textured background:


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/7725.2010_5F00_05_5F00_16-Helgoland-Trottellumme_5F00_MG_5F00_7675-ausschnitt.jpg

[Gustaftoni]

Well, I got the 17-55 already and I

[ddt0725]

Sorry to chime in so late but here's my thoughts for what it's worth. I do own a many of the lenses mentioned along with the 7D and first off I'd like to say congrats on the purchase of your new 17-55mm!! I don't shoot with mine very often but always get very nice results when I do. I used it for a number of shots tonight and looking over some of them now, I'm telling myself that I have to shoot with this lens more often!!


I also have the 100-400mm and have taken it with on many hikes. I never have a problem with the weight of it around my neck but after awhile, handholding isn't as steady as I'd like it to be. But then again, I'm not all that strong of a woman either but I am getting stronger then when I first started carrying this around months ago![:P] I also used to own the 300mm f/4 IS butwanted the versatility of a zoom and am very happy I switched! As others have shown, image quality is still superb!

I also have the 70-200mm f/4 IS and this lens is AWESOME! I am happy with my shots with and without using my 1.4x II extender. With that said, I took it with the other day on a hike and as much as I love it, I missed a number of shots because I didn't have the length I needed. I keep thinking I should have brought the 100-400mm instead! I may have still had to crop some but it wouldn't have been as bad. And yes, an updated version of the 100-400mm would be nice but I am sure it will come with quite a price difference!

I too am considering the new 70-300mm and am patiently waiting for the reviews to come out. I would have to sell both my 70-200mm &amp; 100-400mm to purchase it so at least that gives me time to decide if that is really what I want to do. You are in a tough spot ..it's going to be awhile yet before the reviews docome out and the lens is being shipped. Only you can decide if you want to wait and miss shots you could be getting now.

Whatever you decide, it sounds like your putting alot of thought into making the right decision so I know you will be very happy in the end! Hey, who knows, maybe you'll buy one of mine! [:P] [;)]

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!

Denise

[JJphoto]

Here is an example I shot with the 400/5.6 and D7 combo (slightly cropped):


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5710.2010_5F00_05_5F00_15-Helgoland-Seehunde_5F00_MG_5F00_6989-Ausschnitt.jpg









<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Love this shot very much! the baby sea lion(is it?) looks so cute!, also like the lower angel, didn't you get wet when shoot this picture?![:D]

[saturnia]

I simply pool my replies in this one:


@ JJphoto: thanks for your compliment [:D]. Its a baby gray seal. I didn't get wet, I shot it right from the beach, but from a low position (got dirty clothes...). If you look for big predators, Germany isn't quite the place you'd think to find some. But gray seals (on the island Helgoland) are already quite impressive. The bulls weigh up to 300 kg (about the size of a sea lion if I remember correctly from watching them in California). And you should be careful not to get too close to them since on short distances they can crawl faster than you can run. And because they never clean their teeth you can get seriously into trouble when they bite you. You can get a life-threatening sepsis, I learned from an expert. But they are pure fun to watch, they are always in action, and the love to play... And 400 mm (the 7D's 1.6x crop) was just right to keep enough distance so we did not make them nervous.


@ Gustaftoni: I'm a lens cap mania, too[Y]. But it didn't help me with my particular 17-55. The only thing that should have helped is a filter screwed on it. But I found out that even my expensive B&amp;W UV filters cost about one stop, and as I often need more then less light (not living on the equator), I quit the idea of using filters all the time. But, obviously there are 17-55's around that have not such a dust issue. Maybe Canon has sealed some copies better. Same applies obviously to the 100-400 zoom. I was warned by other photographers that it is called THE dust pump, and that it is not really sharp on the long tele end. But looking on the web, reading reviews etc. it looks like there are better and less good copies around. If you get this zoom, I'd recommend you to test your copy and return it immediately if you are not satisfied. Maybe you can rent a 400/5.6 or a 300/4 prime for a day (depends on the focal distance you think you'd use mostly on the longer tele end) and make a test shooting. I'd recommend then to focus all lenses manually with life view and 10x magnification to eliminate issues with a maybe not perfectly microadjusted AF drive (I had to microadjust all my tele primes with the 7D). The point is that the 7D demands for really sharp lenses if you want to take full advantage of its sensor: a full frame 5D II has only 8 MP on the same sensor area as the 7D's 18 MP. So the 7D's (and T2i/550D's) spatial resolution I think is currently the highest amoungst all Canon DSLRs.


@ Denise: that's true, 70-200mm f/4 IS is an awful action lens. I am always thinking about upgrading to the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I am not sure I really need that (I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 as backup if I need a fast lens and have enough time to focus manually). It produces remarkably more sharp action shots then my other tele lenses even with my 50D. Here is for Gustaftoni an example from a horse race where I observed that one of the pro photographers there used it, too (and not the f2.8)... this shot is a simple sports pic but shows that you alreaday with the f/4's smaller aperture can play a bit with depth-of-field:


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2287._5F00_MG_5F00_9434-crop-low-res.JPG





Finally, just as Denise I think too, that all lenses discussed here are great tools to work with.

[neuroanatomist]

The only thing that should have helped is a filter screwed on it. But I found out that even my expensive B&amp;W UV filters cost about one stop, and as I often need more then less light (not living on the equator), I quit the idea of using filters all the time.


I am the happy owner of a dust-free EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (and also a dust free 100-400mm). I think the fact that I keep UV filters on my lenses all the time may help there (note that for many L lenses that are 'weather sealed' a filter is required to complete the seal).


What makes you think that your expensive B+W UV filters are costing you a stop of light? The B+W MRC UV filters transmit &gt;99% of the visible light, meaning an insignificant loss. Uncoated filters cost you about 8%, and single-coated filters cost about 3% of light. So, there's no way you should be losing anywhere near even a third of a stop of light with a B+W UV filter. Obviously, other types of filters will cost you light - an ND 101 (0.3) is a 1-stop filter, a polarizing filter will cost you about 1.75 stops, etc.

[Kayaker72]

I too am considering the new 70-300mm and am patiently waiting for the reviews to come out. I would have to sell both my 70-200mm &amp; 100-400mm to purchase it so at least that gives me time to decide if that is really what I want to do.


Hi Denise,


I am considering 4 lenses for my next purchase and you are discussing three of them. I am curious why you are considering trading the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400L for the 70-300L? No judgement here as I may buy the 70-300L. I am truly curious and would appreciate your thoughts on the 3 lenses. BTW, I never commented, but great shot of the hawk, and I also noticed a nice sunrise shot go by on flickr a few days ago.


Thanks,


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

I am considering 4 lenses for my next purchase and you are discussing three of them.


What's the 4th one? [;)]


I'm also considering the new 70-300mm L, as a replacement for a 70-300mm DO that I have for convenience (when it's not feasible to bring the 100-400mm or 70-200mm II). I like the fact that the new lens is weather-sealed (a feature that both the 100-400mm and the 70-300mm DO lack), and it's fairly portable.

[saturnia]

Yes I was surprised, too. As a physicist I would have expected nearly no changes. But when I used AV und fixed the aperture, my 50D and 7D nearly doubled exposure time when I screwed the filter on it. I used for this test a tripod and shot the same pictures. I started thinking whether the filter affects the automatic measurement system in a nonlinear way.

[saturnia]

@ neuroanatomist: this filter issue kept me thinking now. The 77 mm filter that I used is quite old I must say. I checked it now with a much newer one of my wife

[neuroanatomist]

Very, very odd. As long as it was a UV filter, and not a polarizer, etc., there should be no effect whatsoever. I just did an impromptu test, and I see no difference in the metered shutter speed (with aperture and ISO fixed) with or without a B+W MRC UV filter, on a couple of different lenses (different filters, different sizes).


One question - when you conducted the test on your tripod, did you have the viewfinder covered (or were you using Live View)? If not, ambient light entering through the VF will affect exposure.


For example, I'm sitting here withthe camera setto ISO 100 and f/2.8 (Av mode). The back of the camera is facing the window, with light-filtering shades letting in some outside light, with the lens aimed at another, darker room. I have a lens cap covering the eyecup (which is what I always do for tripod shots where my eye will be away from the VF). The metered shutter speed is 0.3 s, but if I then remove the lens cap from the eyecup, the metered shutter speed goes up to 1/100 s. That's a difference of 5 full stops, just from light coming in through the viewfinder. Granted, that was an extreme situation where the ambient light was much brighter behind the camera than in the lens' field of view, but it definitely illustrates the point. In 'normal' use out shooting with a tripod, I find that leaving the VF uncovered can affect the exposure by 1/3 of a stop to a full stop or more, depending on lighting conditions and where I'm standing in relation to the VF, which is why I always cover it. That's also why Canon provides an eyepiece cover threaded through the neck strap - it's just a pain to use since it requires removing the eyecup from the viewfinder (and I don't use the Canon neckstrap anyway). But, I find that hanging the lens cap over the eyecup does the job.


--John

[saturnia]

The metered shutter speed is 0.3 s, but if I then remove the lens cap from the eyecup, the metered shutter speed goes up to 1/100 s. That's a difference of 5 full stops, just from light coming in through the viewfinder.


Need to be brief as I have to leave for a party ([H]). Without retesting it now I think you hit it! When I did that past year I definitely did not cover the viewfinder and if I remember correctly I did not use live-view - yes, I am sure. So this must be the source of error! How stupid I was to forget this. I'll try it again with the old filter when I find time for that, but this can be the only logical explanation.So I can use my old filter. I thought that something with its anti reflecting films could have irritated the cam's measurement system.


Thanks again for your great help, John!

[Kayaker72]

What's the 4th one? /emoticons/emotion-5.gif


[:D] The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II [:D]


I think I have yet to contract the "L" disease, but I want to try an L lens, and I am most likely to get the 100-400L or the 70-300L. But it is hard to ignore thatwhile it is out of my budget, paired with a 2x extender it is a single lens that covers 70-400 mm really well. In fact it probably covers 70-200 the best of the 4 options,and 200-400 well, but not as well as the 100-400L (and maybe the 70-300L). So, what I am kicking around is:

100-400L (negatives: size, weight, aperture from 100-200mm and missing 70-100mm)
70-300L plus a 3rd party 1.4x extender (negatives: needs an extender for 300+mm, f/8 from 300-420 mm/autofocus ?, and aperture from 100-200 mm)
70-200L f/4 IS plus a 2x extender (negatives: extender, f/8 from 200-400 mm/no autofocus [:'(])
70-200L f/2.8 IS II plus 2x extender (negatives: extender, cost, size, and weight)



Part of me was thinking about getting two lenses to cover this range and I was thinking about exactly what Denise has, the 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-400L. Which is why I asked my question. Mythoughtsabout the comboare pretty simple, it would cost the same as the 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II with2x extender and I'd always be tempted to carry around two lenses (3 if you include my EFS 15-85). This is an issue with me as I do a lot of traveling. In the next six months I have trips planned to Washington DC, 2 to Florida,Washington/Idaho, Las Vegas, Acadia NP and a vacation (Mexico or Costa Rica). Some of this is work, some play, but I'd like to take my camera to all of them. Sototal/combinedsize and weight matter (BTW, that ismore travel than usual, but I do travel several times a year for work and play).


One last thought, I do like my EFS 15-85, but it is f/5.6 from 70-85, which is also where it is theleast sharp. So gaining a stop or two from 70-100 mm with sharp glass would be nice, but not completely necessary.


So, if I want to stay under $2k, this most likely leads me to the 100-400L or the 70-300L (with the 1.4x Kenko extender). I may make up my mind today, I am headed to a shop to handle the 100-400L or I might wait for pricing/reviews for the 70-300L, but after Bryan's preliminary review where he lumped the 70-300L in with the 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II as "great" lenses, I may not wait for the review, just the street price.


Thoughts and opinions are welcome. I've learned a lot reading everyones posts.


Thanks,


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

All great points, Brant - what it comes down to is that there is no perfect lens (just like there is no perfect camera bag, which is why I have 4 of them and counting, but that's a story for another day). All four of the lenses you're considering are excellent - it really comes down to what you want to shoot, and your budget.


Generally speaking, I recommend against the 2x extender. You mention the obvious issue with loss of autofocus, and don't forget that even if it works (e.g. 70-200 f/2.8 with 2x), AF is significantly slower than without the TC. But the main issue is optical quality - although the 1.4x extender gives decent results with very sharp zooms (70-200mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the 2x has a much greater negative impact on IQ, and is really suited mainly to the supertelephoto primes (the $4K and up lenses). 3rd party extenders are generally not up to the quality of the Canon extenders, so there even a 1.4x might not give good results (i.e., you might be better off just cropping).


If you're traveling, IMO it doesn't make sense to carry lenses with substantial overlap in focal length. I can't see going on a trip and taking both a 70-200mm f/4 and a 100-400mm. I can see having both lenses (I have the 100-400mm and the 70-300mm DO), but not taking them on the same outing - if I need the reach and can take the weight/bulk, I bring the 100-400mm, and if I need to travel light, I bring the 70-300mm DO. As I've mentioned, I'm considering swapping the DO for the new 70-300mm L for the improved IQ and weather sealing.


I'd say first and foremost consider what you'll be shooting and what you can carry. You have a versatile but slowish standard zoom, and I think it would pair well with either the 100-400mm if you want the most reach, or the new 70-300mm if you want to sacrifice some reach for portability. If you just want a telezoom for general use, as opposed to wildlife/birds, then the 70-200mm f/4L IS is a good option, too (but I wouldn't pair it with a 2x extender, and if you're going to pair it with a 1.4x extender, you'd be better off with the native 70-300 of the new L zoom).


I have the 70-200mm f.2.8L IS II, and it certainly is a great lens. Bryan calls it his, "...favorite and most used lens." But keep in mind that he shoots full frame. To me, 70-200mm on a 1.6x crop body is a bit of an awkward focal length. The relatively fast f/2.8 aperture is great, but the focal length is really too long to use indoors on a crop body (around the house, I mean - if you're shooting indoor events, that's a different story). Outdoors, it's not long enough for birds/wildlife. Where it shines for me is family shots in the yard, trips to the beach, etc. The knowledge that I'll eventually add a full frame camera to my kit is one reason I went with the 70-200mm II - I expect it will see a lot more use on FF.


Personally, I'd recommend deciding on the zoom you want based on what you're going to shoot. If you want to 'shoot a little of everything' then the new 70-300mm L seems like a great compromise.


After the telezoom, if your budget permits, I'd recommend considering a fast prime as the third lens you carry. Look back over your shots from the 15-85mm to help guide which focal length would be most useful as a fast prime - lenses to consider would be the 85m f/1.8, the50mm f/1.4,or if those are too long, the 35mm f/2 (although that last one is not up to the quality of the first two).


Hope that helps...


--John

[ddt0725]

To me, 70-200mm on a 1.6x crop body is a bit of an awkward focal length. The relatively fast f/2.8 aperture is great, but the focal length is really too long to use indoors on a crop body (around the house, I mean - if you're shooting indoor events, that's a different story). Outdoors, it's not long enough for birds/wildlife. Where it shines for me is family shots in the yard, trips to the beach, etc.


Exactly the same here! I have it as pretty much a "gap filler" from my primes to my 100-400mm and although my 70-200mm f/4 is a great lens and I do use it alot with the extender, it just doesn't have alot of reach still. I'm even considering just selling this one and the extenderand hang on to the 100-400mm, if and when I get the 70-300mm (if the IQ matches).

Definitely stay away from the 2x extender. You will be sacrificing a great deal of IQ with the lens you are comtemplating.

Also, with your budget constraints, have you considered buying used to stretch your$ further? I havesold almost brand new lenses and a camera at painfully cheap prices and I have bought a few things also used and I haven't been dissapointed in them. Check around for some great deals!

Denise

[doggiedoc]

Definitely stay away from the 2x extender. You will be sacrificing a great deal of IQ


I was just oogling over the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens at the local camera shop yesterday. I told the person helping me that since I already have the F 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens, I wasn't dead set on buying yet..... (truth is I didn't want to cough of the $2400 they wanted this soon after buying my 7D) .... he suggested I trade in my 100-400 and get the 70-200 with a 2x extender and have best of both worlds.


That sounded like a reasonable idea, but what you guys are saying about loss of IQ with the extenders, I'd rather save up and own both lenses. =)


Paul

[bob williams]

Yeah, What DD said [:)]. I too own the 2x converter----Even though I have needed it several times, I don't think the converter has been used in two years. I was really unhappy with the GREAT loss of IQ when used.



but what you guys are saying about loss of IQ with the extenders, I'd rather save up and own both lenses. =)


Now your talking--


Bob

[ddt0725]

Now your talking--


Bob



I'll 2nd that![Y]

[doggiedoc]

SAVE UP!! LOL

[neuroanatomist]

That sounded like a reasonable idea, but what you guys are saying about loss of IQ with the extenders, I'd rather save up and own both lenses. =)


Good plan. The 70-200 II does pretty well with the 1.4x extender - my 70-200 II+1.4x is a tiny bit softer at 280mm wide open (f/4) than the 100-400mm at 280mm wide open (f/5.6); stopping them down to f/8 at 280mm, the 70-200 II+1.4x is a little sharper than the 100-400mm. But with the 2x, results would not be nearly as close.


Depending on your time frame, though, it might be worth seeing how the MkIII version of the 2x performs. It's due out soon, and I'm sure Bryan will test it with the 70-200 II. I really doubt it will equal the performance of the 100-400mm @ 400mm, but I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised! If it does well, a weather-sealed 140-400mm f/5.6 with 4-stop IS would be pretty sweet!

[Kayaker72]

what it comes down to is that there is no perfect lens (just like there is no perfect camera bag, which is why I have 4 of them and counting, but that's a story for another day


I keep telling myself whatever lens I pick, I will be able to take some great pictures, but I am going to miss some too. As for the camera bags....I walked into the shop to look at lenses and somehow walked out with a Think Tank Holster 30 [:D]



Generally speaking, I recommend against the 2x extender.


I should have clarified that I was/am waiting to see if the IQ is better with the Mk III extenders. I've looked at the ISO 12233 charts a lot and their are some apertures where the image quality really isn't too bad, but there are better options out there and I don't really want a lens where I am limited to a couple of aperture settings for good IQ. But I figure that theMk III's might build upon that. But based on what I am hearing from those of you with the 2x Mk II, those two options are much further down, if not off,the list. If I go with the 70-300L, the thought of the 3rd party 1.4x extender wasn't so much for a permenant solution, but more of a tool for emergencies and to see if I do take a number of shots where I want 400+ mm.


And Denise, sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to quote from multiple posts, but I have actually considered buying used. Lensrentals.com has three 100-400L's that they are selling. My issue with used is that the prices are usually only 10-20% off, which is a savings, but at that point, I typically would prefer to know where my lens has been. But it is something I am keeping my eye on.


As for my visit, it sounds like I had a similar experience to Paul.The sales rep thought I should go with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I with a 2x extender. He had a used one for $1,500. But that isnot the direction I am going to go. I did get to hold and play with the 100-400L. It is a really nice lens. I actually really like the push-pull zoom, very fast and smooth. I also really liked how you could quickly adjust the focus with your thumb. Even though I've looked at the dimensions, unextended, it was "smaller" than I had thought. And at first I didn't mind the weight, but as I held it while talking to the sales rep, it began to get heavy. The rep was already suggesting the used 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk I, so at that point I started to play with it plus an extender.


Overall, I think this has narrowed my debate to the 100-400L and the 70-300L. But stillwould likestreet price/potentially reviews for the 70-300L.


Thanks everyone,


Brant

[JJphoto]

The only thing that should have helped is a filter screwed on it. But I found out that even my expensive B&amp;W UV filters cost about one stop, and as I often need more then less light (not living on the equator), I quit the idea of using filters all the time.


I am the happy owner of a dust-free EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (and also a dust free 100-400mm). I think the fact that I keep UV filters on my lenses all the time may help there (note that for many L lenses that are 'weather sealed' a filter is required to complete the seal).





I agree with John so I use filter too, however Saturnia, if you can live without filters, why bother switch back, I think your pictures have a nice "clean" looking I don't see very often, maybe because you didn't use a filter?

[saturnia]

I agree with John so I use filter too, however Saturnia, if you can live without filters, why bother switch back, I think your pictures have a nice "clean" looking I don't see very often, maybe because you didn't use a filter?


That's a nice compliment, thank you [:D]. Interesting: I really don't know whether the secret is my abstinence of filters, never thought about that before. I do sometimes use filters, e.g. polar filters when I shoot landscapes - but not very often, that's true.



note that for many L lenses that are 'weather sealed' a filter is required to complete the seal


Re. teles my experience in particular with the non weather sealed 300/4 L and 400/5.6 L is that you can use them without trouble in quite bad weather. The only thing I really trained as an automatism is to immediately unscrew and extend its lens hoods when I take them out of the bag. Their hoods are quite long, slim tubes and therefore good protection shields. Only when the sea sprays a lot of tiny salt water drops into the air or in dusty environments I use a protection filter. Last but not least air loaded with water or dust normally is not the condition for tele shooting.


Roland

[Kayaker72]

Overall, I think this has narrowed my debate to the 100-400L and the 70-300L.


So, I just ordered the 100-400L. [:D] I just want to thank everyone for your posts, they were very helpful. I came close yesterday, but after thinking about it today, I decided to buy it.


But right before buying it, I ran everything by my wife, giving her some of the background. Paul, BTW, my wife is also a "doggie (and kitty) doc"[:D]. So we basically hadthe following conversation:


Wife: So a lot of the people on your web thingy have this lens and they all love it?


Me: Ahh, yep. A lot of them have it and seem to use it a lot.


Wife: And you've seen a bunch of pictures and they are all great?


Me: Yeah. Mostly birds and planes, but we should be able to use it for other stuff.


Wife: And we can have it now, right before our trip?


Me: That is true.


Wife: And it has more zoom than the other one? Isn't that the point of a zoom lens? She gives me in a slightly confused and somehow disappointed look.


Me: I'll go order the lens.


[:D] I am excited. Thanks again for all your help.


Brant

[doggiedoc]

LOL Brant! I think you

[ddt0725]

Congrats!! Lookin

[JJphoto]

Overall, I think this has narrowed my debate to the 100-400L and the 70-300L.


So, I just ordered the 100-400L. /emoticons/emotion-2.gif I just want to thank everyone for your posts, they were very helpful. I came close yesterday, but after thinking about it today, I decided to buy it.


But right before buying it, I ran everything by my wife, giving her some of the background. Paul, BTW, my wife is also a "doggie (and kitty) doc"/emoticons/emotion-2.gif. So we basically hadthe following conversation:


Wife: So a lot of the people on your web thingy have this lens and they all love it?


Me: Ahh, yep. A lot of them have it and seem to use it a lot.


Wife: And you've seen a bunch of pictures and they are all great?


Me: Yeah. Mostly birds and planes, but we should be able to use it for other stuff.


Wife: And we can have it now, right before our trip?


Me: That is true.


Wife: And it has more zoom than the other one? Isn't that the point of a zoom lens? She gives me in a slightly confused and somehow disappointed look.


Me: I'll go order the lens.


/emoticons/emotion-2.gif I am excited. Thanks again for all your help.


Brant
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





that's so funny Brant! my wife seems harder to deal with[:(]


congratulate to your new glass!

[saturnia]

Wife: So a lot of the people on your web thingy have this lens and they all love it?


Me: Ahh, yep. A lot of them have it and seem to use it a lot.


Wife: And you've seen a bunch of pictures and they are all great?


Me: Yeah. Mostly birds and planes, but we should be able to use it for other stuff.


Wife: And we can have it now, right before our trip?


Me: That is true.


Wife: And it has more zoom than the other one? Isn't that the point of a zoom lens? She gives me in a slightly confused and somehow disappointed look.


Me: I'll go order the lens.





So great, Brant, LOL! I wish you good luck with this lens. Obviously so many are happy with it - it can't be a bad investment...


My wife'd say: You really want to get a zoom with such an extended range? And old school push/pull design? Can't be a good lens. (No joke, I heard her saying that when she watched someone using this zoom...)


Roland

[Kayaker72]

my wife seems harder to deal with/emoticons/emotion-6.gif


I may have failed to mention that I am paying for it with "my" money not "family" money. Makes a difference. [:)]

[saturnia]

My wife was born with camera gear, she