Lens upgrade for my 7D

[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 []

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&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 []. 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. [] 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"[]. 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.


[] 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. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img] 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"[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]. 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.


[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img] 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[img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img]

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