Extra reach: body or glass?

[Alan]

I love my 5DMk2, but when I use a TC with my 100-400 L, I don't like the slow or erratic AF response (pins are taped). Plus, there is a slight degradation of the image.


Byran lists the new Sigma zoom lens APO 50-500. A web search shows that it's gonna cost around $1600.


I can't afford Canon's 500 L. I want the reach of the 500, though. I've got wide angle lenses to cover the other end of the scale.


A 7D will make my 100-400 go out to 640 mm. The Sigma 50-500 will be 500 on my FF 5D (which is really the place I'd have this lens all the time, anyway).


With the prices nearly the same, it seems like a new body would be the better way to go.


So, what's your take?

[Brendan7]

I have two suggestions if you want more reach:


1. Get closer


2. 7D





Don't go for the Sigma 50-500. In general that kind of lens just means trouble IMO. Especially for $1600. I know people who buy a 50-500 or Tamron 200-500 so they have more reach than their 300 f.4 or 100-400 and then realize they prefer using the Canon L lens anyway.


The 7D will give you more reach, but for $1700. It would be a nice advantage to have both a full-frame for portraits and a crop body for action, but it is possible you could just save $1700 by getting closer. If you want more reach for birds (usually the case), a blind, LensCoat, and some practice can save you the expense of buying more gear. Of course, sometimes more reach is needed. Could you specify why you are looking for more reach?


my 2¢


brendan

[Alan]

If you want more reach for birds (usually the case), a blind, LensCoat, and some practice can save you the expense of buying more gear. Of course, sometimes more reach is needed. Could you specify why you are looking for more reach?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Brendan, you already know the answer: BIRDS!


But, it's not just birds. It's tough to get close to some critters.


Okay, okay....I'll practice more. []

[Brendan7]

Well, as a wildlife photographer too, I always want more reach. Unfortunately, most people immediately think, "Dang, the 500's too expensive, but...Whoa! a 50-500 zoom! No way!". And then they buy that lens. I am just personally not a fan of those lenses. They're slow, heavy, and give half-decent IQ. IMO the 7D makes much more sense, but even with my 7D I still have to approach skittish critters (well, I have a 300 f4). So maybe a 7D would be a good purchase, maybe you should rent it to find out. Then you can answer your own question []


brendan

[Jon Ruyle]

This may be too obvious to mention, but the 7D only gives you more reach if you're maxing out the pixel density of the 5DII. That is, if your 5DII pictures don't look good full size (ie, viewed at 100%), then more pixel density probably won't help.

[Alan]

Jon, you mean that if I just cropped the image on the 5DII, I'm about where the 7D would be, correct?

[Bill W]

Alan;


Very appropriate question for I'm asking myself the same question, but for a different reason....I want better AF in low light situations, i.e. New England overcast winter days.


I'm currently using a 40D w/my 100-400 and after using the this combo for nearly 3 years, I've become tired of the combos (lack of) ability to quickly focus on my subject in a busy setting in low light.


I decided to rent a 7D (2 weeks ago) and the 5D MKll (rec'd yesterday PM) to make comparisons.


My findings w/the 7D; AF tremendous accuracy, it would nail the subject on the first focus attempt most of the time and if a second attempt was needed....it succeeded. It also helped the 100-400 (in general) in the low light situations.


Both body pix examples are 23% and 100% from CS3 w/little PP.


Here are2 pix (sorry not the best captures, but the closest in distanceto the 5D MKll examples) from the 7D taken at 23 feet at a downward angle. Sorry don't have too many test shots w/the 5D MKll yet.


5.6, 1/800, ISO 500, 400mm








Here are 2 taken w/the 5D MKll at 22 feet, eye level and in comparing the AF....it's a little slower than the 7D (no surprise), but still very accurate (still more testing to do in busy settings).


6.3, 1/640, ISO 500, 400mm








At the moment I'm liking the cropping and 100% enlargementw/the 5D MKll, but it's early.


If I were you I'd, at this moment,take Brendan's first suggestion....get closer, being careful not to stress out your subjects. I can't speak about the Sigma....I've never used one.


And sadly to say I'm back on the fence, kvetching now over which body....I stated on the post concerning the rebates I'd hop on the 7D, but......????? [*-)]


I don't know if this helps Alan.....


Good luck


Bill


P.S. Brendan, I know you disdain birds captured on feeders, but it's rare to catch a Robin actually feeding at my station.

[Brendan7]

P.S. Brendan, I know you disdain birds captured on feeders, but it's rare to catch a Robin actually feeding at my station.

I understand! I've never gotten one at mine [:P]