Lens upgrade for my 7D

[Trowski]

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).

I owned this lens for some time as well. I was very impressed with the pictures it took, but mine was a dust magnet as well. I know the dust doesn't really degrade the images it would take, but I'm far too OCD about my gear and it bothered me, so I actually cleaned the lens a couple of times myself. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZRN2mxajk) gives a great little tutorial of how to do it. I used toothpicks to pull up the ring around the lens, since the wood isn't hard enough to scratch the lens.I eventually ended up selling the lens when I bought a 5DII and the 7D became my backup/telephoto camera.

Well, if that squirrel is a worst case sample, I think I'll get the 100-400 as soon as I can.

A couple things you might want to be aware of with the 100-400mm: The lens is quite a bit larger than the others you probably have experience with. It's not an easy lens to take on hiking trips, camping, or anywhere where space or weight become issues. I know some might argue this with me, and really it's all personal preference, but I disliked the push/pull mechanism of this lens. It's also not weather-sealed, unlike most current L glass, so depending on what situations you're considering using the lens in, this is also a factor to keep in mind.


I own a 70-200 f/4 IS and am quite happy with it. I've used it for landscapes, people, flowers, etc. I've never used the non-IS version, but from what I understand the upgrade to the IS version is worth the significant increase in price. IS on a telephoto lens is just too valuable and I understand the build quality and image quality is better as well. 200mm might be a little on the short side for you, but for the same price as the 100-400mm you can buy the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 1.4x teleconverter. This would result in a 98-280mm f/5.6, and on your 7D would actually be 157-448mm. Still not the potential 160-640mm of the 100-400mm, but in a lighter, more versatile package. There's so many pixels on the 7D, cropping is definitely an option.


If it's not too late, for you I might recommend either the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 coupled with the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS + 1.4x teleconverter.

[saturnia]

A couple things you might want to be aware of with the 100-400mm: The lens is quite a bit larger than the others you probably have experience with. It's not an easy lens to take on hiking trips, camping, or anywhere where space or weight become issues. I know some might argue this with me, and really it's all personal preference, but I disliked the push/pull mechanism of this lens. It's also not weather-sealed, unlike most current L glass, so depending on what situations you're considering using the lens in, this is also a factor to keep in mind.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

If you can live with the restrictions of primes you could consider the EF 400 mm f/5.6 L USM as an alternative. I have both this one and the EF 300 mm f/4 L IS USM to add those two prime tele ranges to the 70-200 mm. The EF 400 mm is - for a tele lens - quite light, tack sharp already @ open aperture and great e.g. for birding. I need to be careful but some reviews I found in the net showed me clearly that this prime beats the 100-400 mm in sharpness @ the long tele end (see e.g. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml). And that's what I wanted to use it for. In particular, as the 18 MP APS-C sensor is crowded with small pixels and therefore has an extremely high resolution, I decided to go for this prime. I did not regret it.


The 400/5.6 is 100g lighter as the 100-400 zoom and I find it superb for handheld shooting. Another plus is its very fast and quite accurate USM drive that is much less prone to AF pumping as the 300/4 if you shoot an object in front of a very structured background (e.g. flying bird in front of trees). The only drawbacks are that it has no IS so you have to train a bit using it as the picture in the viewfinder is not so quite (but that goes quickly - its old school and people managed that before) and it is not fully weather sealed. On the other hand I used it in rain, snow, and never had any problems with it. It looks and feels like a slimmer but longer brother to the 300/4 but has a completely different characteristic. It is much better for action (paired with the 7D and 50D) as it does produced less defocused pictures than the 300. But has with 3.5 m shortest distance no macro capacity, whereas the 300/4 with 1.5 m and a magnification of 0.24 is really great for shy objects. At this macro distance, I really appreciate its IS, too, works quite nicely.


Here is an example I shot with the 400/5.6 and D7 combo (slightly cropped):


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5710.2010_5F00_05_5F00_15-Helgoland-Seehunde_5F00_MG_5F00_6989-Ausschnitt.jpg[/img]





And here is an example for action shooting with this combo (cropped). Iit is not a masterpiece in terms of photography, I know, but I am proud of it because it is very hard to shoot flying common murres - they a small and have to fly extremely fast because with their small wings the would fall like a stone. Another difficulty was that I shot it downwards from the bird rocks of the German island Heligoland so the 7D's AF really had to struggle with the sea surface as quite a textured background:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/7725.2010_5F00_05_5F00_16-Helgoland-Trottellumme_5F00_MG_5F00_7675-ausschnitt.jpg[/img]

[Gustaftoni]

Well, I got the 17-55 already and I

[ddt0725]

Sorry to chime in so late but here's my thoughts for what it's worth. I do own a many of the lenses mentioned along with the 7D and first off I'd like to say congrats on the purchase of your new 17-55mm!! I don't shoot with mine very often but always get very nice results when I do. I used it for a number of shots tonight and looking over some of them now, I'm telling myself that I have to shoot with this lens more often!!


I also have the 100-400mm and have taken it with on many hikes. I never have a problem with the weight of it around my neck but after awhile, handholding isn't as steady as I'd like it to be. But then again, I'm not all that strong of a woman either but I am getting stronger then when I first started carrying this around months ago![:P] I also used to own the 300mm f/4 IS butwanted the versatility of a zoom and am very happy I switched! As others have shown, image quality is still superb!

I also have the 70-200mm f/4 IS and this lens is AWESOME! I am happy with my shots with and without using my 1.4x II extender. With that said, I took it with the other day on a hike and as much as I love it, I missed a number of shots because I didn't have the length I needed. I keep thinking I should have brought the 100-400mm instead! I may have still had to crop some but it wouldn't have been as bad. And yes, an updated version of the 100-400mm would be nice but I am sure it will come with quite a price difference!

I too am considering the new 70-300mm and am patiently waiting for the reviews to come out. I would have to sell both my 70-200mm &amp; 100-400mm to purchase it so at least that gives me time to decide if that is really what I want to do. You are in a tough spot ..it's going to be awhile yet before the reviews docome out and the lens is being shipped. Only you can decide if you want to wait and miss shots you could be getting now.

Whatever you decide, it sounds like your putting alot of thought into making the right decision so I know you will be very happy in the end! Hey, who knows, maybe you'll buy one of mine! [:P] []

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!

Denise

[JJphoto]

Here is an example I shot with the 400/5.6 and D7 combo (slightly cropped):


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5710.2010_5F00_05_5F00_15-Helgoland-Seehunde_5F00_MG_5F00_6989-Ausschnitt.jpg[/img]









<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Love this shot very much! the baby sea lion(is it?) looks so cute!, also like the lower angel, didn't you get wet when shoot this picture?![]

[saturnia]

I simply pool my replies in this one:


@ JJphoto: thanks for your compliment []. Its a baby gray seal. I didn't get wet, I shot it right from the beach, but from a low position (got dirty clothes...). If you look for big predators, Germany isn't quite the place you'd think to find some. But gray seals (on the island Helgoland) are already quite impressive. The bulls weigh up to 300 kg (about the size of a sea lion if I remember correctly from watching them in California). And you should be careful not to get too close to them since on short distances they can crawl faster than you can run. And because they never clean their teeth you can get seriously into trouble when they bite you. You can get a life-threatening sepsis, I learned from an expert. But they are pure fun to watch, they are always in action, and the love to play... And 400 mm (the 7D's 1.6x crop) was just right to keep enough distance so we did not make them nervous.


@ Gustaftoni: I'm a lens cap mania, too[Y]. But it didn't help me with my particular 17-55. The only thing that should have helped is a filter screwed on it. But I found out that even my expensive B&amp;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. But, obviously there are 17-55's around that have not such a dust issue. Maybe Canon has sealed some copies better. Same applies obviously to the 100-400 zoom. I was warned by other photographers that it is called THE dust pump, and that it is not really sharp on the long tele end. But looking on the web, reading reviews etc. it looks like there are better and less good copies around. If you get this zoom, I'd recommend you to test your copy and return it immediately if you are not satisfied. Maybe you can rent a 400/5.6 or a 300/4 prime for a day (depends on the focal distance you think you'd use mostly on the longer tele end) and make a test shooting. I'd recommend then to focus all lenses manually with life view and 10x magnification to eliminate issues with a maybe not perfectly microadjusted AF drive (I had to microadjust all my tele primes with the 7D). The point is that the 7D demands for really sharp lenses if you want to take full advantage of its sensor: a full frame 5D II has only 8 MP on the same sensor area as the 7D's 18 MP. So the 7D's (and T2i/550D's) spatial resolution I think is currently the highest amoungst all Canon DSLRs.


@ Denise: that's true, 70-200mm f/4 IS is an awful action lens. I am always thinking about upgrading to the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I am not sure I really need that (I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 as backup if I need a fast lens and have enough time to focus manually). It produces remarkably more sharp action shots then my other tele lenses even with my 50D. Here is for Gustaftoni an example from a horse race where I observed that one of the pro photographers there used it, too (and not the f2.8)... this shot is a simple sports pic but shows that you alreaday with the f/4's smaller aperture can play a bit with depth-of-field:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2287._5F00_MG_5F00_9434-crop-low-res.JPG[/img]





Finally, just as Denise I think too, that all lenses discussed here are great tools to work with.

[neuroanatomist]

The only thing that should have helped is a filter screwed on it. But I found out that even my expensive B&amp;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).


What makes you think that your expensive B+W UV filters are costing you a stop of light? The B+W MRC UV filters transmit &gt;99% of the visible light, meaning an insignificant loss. Uncoated filters cost you about 8%, and single-coated filters cost about 3% of light. So, there's no way you should be losing anywhere near even a third of a stop of light with a B+W UV filter. Obviously, other types of filters will cost you light - an ND 101 (0.3) is a 1-stop filter, a polarizing filter will cost you about 1.75 stops, etc.

[Kayaker72]

I too am considering the new 70-300mm and am patiently waiting for the reviews to come out. I would have to sell both my 70-200mm &amp; 100-400mm to purchase it so at least that gives me time to decide if that is really what I want to do.

Hi Denise,


I am considering 4 lenses for my next purchase and you are discussing three of them. I am curious why you are considering trading the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400L for the 70-300L? No judgement here as I may buy the 70-300L. I am truly curious and would appreciate your thoughts on the 3 lenses. BTW, I never commented, but great shot of the hawk, and I also noticed a nice sunrise shot go by on flickr a few days ago.


Thanks,


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

I am considering 4 lenses for my next purchase and you are discussing three of them.

What's the 4th one? []


I'm also considering the new 70-300mm L, as a replacement for a 70-300mm DO that I have for convenience (when it's not feasible to bring the 100-400mm or 70-200mm II). I like the fact that the new lens is weather-sealed (a feature that both the 100-400mm and the 70-300mm DO lack), and it's fairly portable.

[saturnia]

Yes I was surprised, too. As a physicist I would have expected nearly no changes. But when I used AV und fixed the aperture, my 50D and 7D nearly doubled exposure time when I screwed the filter on it. I used for this test a tripod and shot the same pictures. I started thinking whether the filter affects the automatic measurement system in a nonlinear way.