Lens upgrade for my 7D

[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...d_of_view.html , credits to neuroanatomist 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


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

[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:





100% crop:





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.