Upgrade to the 7D and sell my 50D??

[Richard Lane]

I don't think a 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is the way to get to 280mm, and a 70-200mm + 2x TC is definitely not the way to get to 400mm. Compare the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS with the 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 (ISO 12233 crop link). The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS plus 2x TC costs the same as the 100-400mm, lacks IS, and is quite optically inferior. The f/2.8 IS version + TC costs significantly more than 100-400mm, and still optically worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII + TC is even more expensive (pushing $1K more than the 100-400mm), and while the 70-200 II holds up better to a TC than any other 70-200 zoom, it's still not as good as the 100-400mm @ 400mm (although the MkII + 1.4x @ 280mm is as good as the 100-400mm @ 300mm - which is why I use the 70-200 II + 1.4x as a bird/wildlife lens when it's raining (but when it's dry, I use the 100-400mm).


An extender is useful if you only rarely need that focal length. If you regularly use a particular focal length (and for birds/wildlife, you will regularly use 400mm), then get a lens that natively covers that focal length (the few possible exceptions being the fast supertele primes, e.g. 300mm f/2.8L, 400mm f/2.8L, etc., which lose very little optical quality by adding a TC).

In the constraints of cost and quality, I think the 100-400mmm is certainly another good suggestion. I think that lens is really an over achiever, and I'm usually very surprised and impressed with the images that come out of it, however it's a little slow from 135mm and up. I think it's a good wildlife lens, but not as good for faster action. If he gets the 100mm-400mm then his kit will look like this:


50D, 17-55mm, 100-400mm and he has a big hole in his kit, from 55mm-100mm which is a slight problem.


We could play ISO Crop Chess:

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens at 135mm and f/5.6
• I didn't choose a larger and faster aperture, because the 100-400mm lens doesn't have them to match up correctly.

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2


Essentially, I think you will agree that the 70-200mm will win in the 70-200mm range and the 100mm-400mmm will win in the 200-400mm range. The 1.4X will give him some versatility and you're right the 2x looks "not so good" on this 70-200mm Mk I lens. I also have the MK II which is at another level.


The choice really depends on what the majority of his shooting will be and where the sweet spot of his focal length needs to be. Does he need a faster shorter focal length or a longer slower length?


Can he live with a big hole in the 55mm-100mm focal range or will he need another lens to fill that gap?


I know for me the 70-200mm focal range is my favorite range.


Only Cytoman can answer those questions.


But I think we both agree that new glass is the way to go.


Rich

[darklord]

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

It doesn't make sense if one has a hot body and not nice glass. Because hot body is usually accompanied by nice glass. I'm speaking from a photography point of view, of course.

[neuroanatomist]

I think it's a good wildlife lens, but not as good for faster action.

I'd be inclined to agree. I don't shoot sports, but I think the 100-400mm would not be ideal there, due to the relatively narrow aperture. But then, even f/4 (70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC) can be problematic for fast action in sub-optimal light. If you need long focal length and fast aperture, a fast supertele is the way to go, which is why you seem them at every major sporting event. If 200mm is long enough for the sports Cytoman will be shooting, and he'll shoot sports more often than wildlife/birds, then the 70-200mm + TC makes sense. If the shooting preference is the other direction - more wildlife/birds than sports - it's probably not the best choice, IMO.

We could play ISO Crop Chess:

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens at 135mm and f/5.6

Essentially, I think you will agree that the 70-200mm will win in the 70-200mm range and the 100mm-400mmm will win in the 200-400mm range.

That's exactly my point. A teleconverter should be an occasional-use accessory, not something you use all the time you use a particular lens. A 70-200mm @ 135mm will beat out the 100-400mm at 135mm for bare lenses. But if you get to 135mm on the 70-200mm not with the native lens, but with the lens at 96mm with a 1.4x TC, or 140mm with the 70-200mm at 70mm with a 2x TC, the 100-400mm at 135/140mm will beat out the 70-200mm plus a TC.

But I think we both agree that new glass is the way to go.

I think so, yes.

[Richard Lane]

Absolutely Neuro, I couldn't agree with you more.


Rich

[Richard Lane]

Do youprefer a "Hot Body" or a "Nice Piece of Glass?"


Personally.., "I'm a Glass Man."

Absolutely fantastic quote. I may have to steal that one from time to time...

Thanks Sean!, feel free to use it anytime!

[Richard Lane]

It doesn't make sense if one has a hot body and not nice glass. Because hot body is usually accompanied by nice glass. I'm speaking from a photography point of view, of course.

Spoken like a "True Professional."


Rich

[HDNitehawk]

On line price for the 7d without the lens $1539 andcanon offersa $400 or $500 rebate for the pixma 9000 or 9500. The 9000 sells for $499 so you end up with $99 bucks in the printer. With the lens it the 7d is $1799.


I think he is overpriced for the used camera, concidering the rebates offered. Maybee take the memory cards in to concideration. If they are expensive fast cards then that would help, cheap cards not as much.


Take the majoritys advice here, I think for quality of pictures go with the glass first.

[Cytoman]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Wow! Great discussion but this is going to be a tougher decision than I had hoped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] [] Maybe I should have disclosed this earlier but here are my thoughts. I didn't want to sway your opinions and preferences.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Buy the 7D, body only, or sell the 28-135 lens and net$1,200; sell my 50D and battery grip for $700 and sell the Sigma 70-300DG apo $150. Thatwould net me a cost of about $350. I would be losing the glass range of 70-300but would be gaining the improved performance of the 7D body. I'd lose the range of the 70-300 but as you know, it's not that good of a lens anyway. I should have enough saved to purchase the Canon 70-200 IS II with the 1.4x extender.Add a second body (full frame - most likely the 5D II) in a year or two.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]The 17-55 stays on my camera 90% of the time. Mostly because it is the best lens I have. I shoot my kids (indoors, outdoors, sporting events and concerts). Landscapeand general outdoor photography is my passion. The 17-55 is a good fit for most of my needs. My limited range has limited my interest in wildlife. I'm looking to upgrade to the 70-200 to bring some additional range and clarity to my indoor sporting events - and maybe add some closer wildlife photography. Right or wrong, I have shied away from the big primes because I prefer the versatility of the telephotos. When my passion turns into an obsession - I'll likely add a prime or two.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Honestly, I am surprised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] [:O] I expected the 7D to win hands down. I knew glass was important, but I didn't expect it potentially trump an upgrade to the 7D. Either way, I have plenty of people to blame if I don't like my final decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] []<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Additional thought appreciated - I'll be taking my time with this one.


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Thanks - Jeremy (Cytoman)

[neuroanatomist]

I expected the 7D to win hands down. I knew glass was important, but I didn't expect it potentially trump an upgrade to the 7D.

Lens quality has far more impact on the final image than the body. Consider...the image sensor in the 7D is pretty much the same as the sensor found in the Rebel T2i/550D, and your 50D's sensor was used in the Rebel T1i/500D. Obviously, there are many other factors. But it's a fact that a quality lens and a lesser body will generally beat out a great body with a mediocre lens.


One reason you like your shots so much is that you already have an excellent lens - the EF-S 17-55mm delivers L-class optical quality (although the build quality falls a bit short of L-class). That lens is superior in optical performance to something like the Ef 28-135mm being offered with the 7D you mention.


A side note - you mention indoor sports, and for that use an f/2.8 lens is pushing the edge. Since f/2.8 is the fastest zoom that Canon makes, if indoor sports is a priority you might want to consider a prime lens sooner (inexpensive but excellent value options like the EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2 are very good indoor sports lenses, especially on a 1.6x crop body).

[cfnz]

Lens quality has far more impact on the final image than the body.

Cytoman, with this piece of advice in mind, what are you looking to upgrade by moving from a 50D to 7D? Is it 'body' features (e.g. 19-pt autofocus, HD video, weather sealing etc) or is it image quality?