Wildlife & some sports photography - long term lens decisions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

That makes the decision a bit more difficult, I think. The 70-200mm f/4L is a very nice lens, and will have more uses than just wildlife. I suspect you'll find the 200mm long end of that lens to be to close to the 300mm prime, especially if you do add the TC for a 98-280mm zoom. So if you're getting a great deal there, I'd go with option #2. You may find you really enjoy shooting birds in flight, and keep using the 400mm f/5.6L for that even after you get a long supertele down the line.

---

That's my conclusion too at this point.


Thanks again for all of your advice. It's been really helpful. [:)]





Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate? [;)]





Thanks,
Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate?

---

That's a difficult one! I have and really love the 7D - it's an awesome camera with top-notch features and IQ. But the 1-series is a whole other story... If you were debating the 1D4 vs. the 7D and could afford the 1D4, then I'd say go for it. But really, either will be a huge step up from your 20D. IMO, with camera bodies newer is generally better - most of the technological enhancements are for bodies, not lenses, and the upgrade cycle is shorter. For your 20D, there have been 3 updates since it was released in 2004, and a 4th is due soon, I think. The lenses we've been discussing are all >10 years old in design, and still excellent!


Between the 7D and the 1D3, I'd get the 7D and put the remaining $2K toward that supertele.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Between the 7D and the 1D3, I'd get the 7D and put the remaining $2K toward that supertele.

---

I was actually thinking of a used 1D3 which can be found around $2000. So the price difference would be about $500 I think. I think I agree with you though, get the 7D first and then eventually a 1D4 when it's cheaper. The main drawback to the 1D3 was the 10MP, so I think I may be happier with the 7D to hold me over until I need and can afford a 1D4. Not sure though, the 1D3 just keeps drawing me in. Faster, better IQ, fully weather-proof, integrated battery pack design, everything about it just screams professional. We'll see... the camera body purchase will not happen until I get several good lenses, so things will change by then.


Thanks,
Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

Any takers on a 1D Mark III vs 7D debate?

---

<div class="ForumPostButtons"]peety3owns both of them. Herecently picked up a 7D.After shootinghis first event with it, heplans on picking up another one! I'd say that's a pretty good endorsement for the 7D. Check out this thread.</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

the 300 f/4 is as sharp at f/4 as the 100-400 at 300mm f/5.6. Plus, the 300 f/4 is $500 cheaper.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

...but, the 100-400mm achieves 400mm f/5.6 with better IQ than the 300mm + 1.4x TC, and provides the ability to go shorter if necessary.

---

This has been one of the more heated debates on the forum next to the 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS vs the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, small pixel IQ vs large pixel IQ, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L vs the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, etc, etc. Let's not lose site that ALL Canon <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L glass is outstanding! We're lucky that we have so many options to agonize over. In the end you choose the tool that you feel will help you achieve your photographic goals. It's hard enough comparing zoom ranges of the exact same focal length (see above) let alone primes vs zooms. If you're the one doing the buying then choose the tool that you feel will help you achieve your photographic goals. Getting opinions from the members of this forum is probably the best thing you can do (after reading all of Bryan's reviews 1st!) to help you determine what will best suit your needs. For some of us that will be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L. For others it will be the EF 24-105mm f/4.L IS.


Sorry for the off topic rant :-)

I was all aboard on the 7D, but after a LOT of research I have finally settled on the 1D III. Better build, built in grip, weather sealled,faster AF, faster frames, larger view finder, better IQ. There was not justone thing that made me want a 1D III over a 7D, it was everything all together. It's just a pro camera.


True photographers don't care about resolution![:D]


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

I was all aboard on the 7D, but after a LOT of research I have finally settled on the 1D III. Better build, built in grip, weather sealled,faster AF, faster frames, larger view finder, better IQ. There was not justone thing that made me want a 1D III over a 7D, it was everything all together. It's just a pro camera.


True photographers don't care about resolution![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


John.

---

You've just confirmed it for me John. I've been coming to the same conclusions. Thanks for your input! [:)]


Derrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzuk

I've been coming to the same conclusions.

---

Then I think you should follow your gut feeling and buy what you need.


John.

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

True photographers don't care about resolution![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

</div>



I bet you wouldn't have bought it if it only had like 6MP [A] Here I said it! Now I feel a bit more like a true photographer again [:P][;)]

I guess I'm not a true photographer!!!


I love the 18mp of my 7D. I don't think it's a "care or not care" thing. Too few mp (10 on 1.3 crop???) or too many (haven't figured that one out yet) are bad. But a bigger substantial number is nice.