Planning an upgrade path

[Bengalmin]

I've had a DSLR since 2003, when I got a referb D30 andI've had a 30D for over 3 years which I've used with the kit 17-85, 50 f1.8 and 75-300 with some good results. However I think I've outgrown my cheap and chearful lenses, and a safari next year gives me an excuse to upgrade. I'm hoping the collective wisdom of this forum will provide some feedback on my plans and possibly offer alternatives.


I'm thinking of picking up a second body (the D30 is too low resulition andis a pain to use now I'm used to the 30D), with either save my money for lenses and get a second hand 30D/40D/50D or splash out on a 7D, sacrifising money for lenses. I thought about renting a 7D, but it doesn't seem cost effective, for a months rental it would cost about 25% of the purchase price, and I wouldn't have had time to get used to it.


Obviously for the safari at least 400mm would be ideal, I have in the past been to F1 races and airshows, so a long lens would get used, although only once twice a year. This is the reason I'm leaning away from buying a 100-400mm (the most recommended 'budget' safari lens). I think my choice would be to rent a 400 f5.6 or 300 f4 IS specifically for the safari, and think about a purchasing a long lens solution in the future.


The 17-85is a fine walk around lens, and the one in least need of replacement/upgrade in my eyes. If I were to replace it, I'd get the 17-55 f2.8, I think I'd benifit from the larger apature on safari, for dusk/dawn shots, but I think it is bottom of the list.


If I plan to rent a long prime, then I'm going to need a mid zoom, and one of the 70-200 L lenses would be great.Should I get the f4 IS, the f2.8 IS V1, or V2? are the non-IS versions wirth concidering?


My current plan would be. Buy 70-200 f2.8 IS II, rent 400 f5.6, and buya second hand 50D, then think about either buying the 400 f5.6, a x1.4 and x2 extender or the 17-55 f2.8 in the future.


If I had a MAX budget of <$4000 now (including rental costs for 1 month), and another $1500 in a year or two what would you get to replace/complement what I have?


Thanksin advance for your advice


Ben

[Bengalmin]

I forgot to add, apart from the safari, the occasional airshow etc. my main subjects are people (family portraits, candid) and places (landscapes, panoramas)

[neuroanatomist]

Where are you located? If you're in the USA, here's what I'd recommend: get the 7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. With the current Canon rebate program, and double-rebates with the purchase of a body with HD video, putting those three items in a cart at B&H totals up to $3909. That combination will give you broad coverage with excellent IQ and IS throughout the range, along with a camera that's really excellent for wildlife and also great for everyday shooting.


When I went to Africa a few years back, I did not yet have a dSLR, but brought a P&S with a 10x zoom equivalent to 38-380mm. Looking over the EXIF, most of the shots were either at the wide end (and could have been wider) or in the 200-380mm equivalent range and when at the long end, many would have benefitted from even more focal length. I would have thought they'd be mostly at the long end, but for example giraffes and elephants can be approached pretty closely, so I was zooming the lens between almost every subject. The 100-400mm is a highly recommended safari lens for a good reason - pretty long, lots of flexibility for framing shots (sometimes the safari vehicle is close, sometimes far from the subjects), and the slow aperture is fine because there's lots of light.


I suspect if you have a 70-200mm on a crop with a rented 400mm prime, you're going to want to switch back and forth a lot and in a bouncing, dusty Land Rover that's not the easiest or most practical option. If you're happy with your 30D images and thus have two cameras, it's workable that way.


Just some random thoughts to start...let us know where you're located since that has a big impact on the cost of Canon gear.


--John

[bob williams]

Ben, Based on what you say you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you want. May I suggest that with a budget of "<$4000" You could buy new a 7d, a 17-55 f2.8 and a 400 5.6 all for about $3700. this gives you some room for batteries, cards etc and enough time to get more of these items. FYI---I think if you do some research, you would find that the 400 f 5.6 is a great lens with better IQ than the 100-400 and would probably serve you better on your safari, The 17-55 is an all around great lens for your family, people and landscape shots . Now this would leave a gap in your range, but you have some other lenses that can be used to fill that gap. If you needed a little headroom in your budget for other things, consider the 60D vice the 7D, then you could get case, tripod, monopod, filters etc and still be within budget.


Good Luck,


Bob

[Bengalmin]

Thanks, I

[Joel Eade]

Ben,


What about getting a new 7D, the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM II, and a teleconverter (1.4 or 2.0) .... this would be 3968.00 at B&H


The version II of the 70-200 has been shown to produce very sharp images even with the 2.0 converter (do you read Arthur Morris

[HDNitehawk]

A few things I don't like about the 100-400, although there are many things to like. The weight (although similar to the 70-200 2.8), the IS implementation (2 stops), and for every day use I wouldn't need anywhere near 400mm, and would probably want a larger apature. Does that make sense?


Similarly, I'm not sure about buying a 400mm 'up front' I would only use it a couple of times a year. I was thinking in the future the 70-200 2.8 with an extender would give me reach with great (but not excellent) IQ (still leaps ahead of the 75-300)

Ben


Wildlife photography and macro are my favorites. If it were me this is what I would consider and why:


Yes the larger aperture and maybe not needing a 400mm for every day use make sense, but not on a safari to africa.


70-200mm with a 1.4 convertor wouldn't give the quality I would want.


A Safari for me might be a once in a life time thing so I would make the most of it. My choices for the trip would be:


The 7D


Lenses in order:


Rent the 300mm F2.8L and a 1.4 teleconvertor. Not sure what this would cost but it would give you top class pictures at 300mm and extremly nice picutres with the convertor. It doesn't get much better than this and when you finished the trip you would leave knowing you had top equipment to get pictures. You would only be limited by your photography skills.


Buy, rent, or pick up a used copy of the 100-400mm L. The lens has IS, and I think that will be very important on the safari. 400mm for me hand held would be very shakey and I wouldn't get much quality. No teleconvertor on this one,IMO thequality is not up to my expectations. If you get a used copy and it doesn't fit your kit when you come back, sell it.


The 300mm F4.0 L IS. It would be to short in my opinion, but the IS would make up for it being short compared to the 400mm non IS. With the 1.4 teleconvertor IMO the pictures would beOK but not great.


The 400mm F5.6L wouldn't be an option. With no IS in a vehicle all day it would be tough to hand hold. It would be hard to tranport and set up a tripod over and over again. If I were setting the lens up on a tripod I would concider it. I doubt a tripod would be possible on a regular basis.


Good Luck and Happy Hunting


EDIT:

If you're in the USA, here's what I'd recommend: get the 7D, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. With the current Canon rebate program, and double-rebates with the purchase of a body with HD video, putting those three items in a cart at B&H totals up to $3909.

Ben, John's choices are rock solid for having a good kit to goon safari, and a great all around kit for normal use when youreutrn. I would still go for the 300mm f2.8L but I tend to do things to the extreme.

[Bengalmin]

The teleconverter thing sounds good to me for day to day use, but swapping in the field is the disadvantage, which is why for the safari I think renting a second longer lens is the preferred solution.


The 300 f2.8 would simply be too heavy for me to transport, we

[HDNitehawk]

Maybe renting the 100-400 is a better option than the 400 prime, but quality if this lens seems highly variable.

The 400mm F5.6 might edge the 100-400mm in quality a bit. But without the IS I know I would loose alot of pictures to the shakes at 400mm. If you go with the 400mm F5.6 I would recomend at least a monopod if not a tripod to go along.

[neuroanatomist]

UK...not quite as bad as the EU for Canon costs, but still more than the USA. []


I'll reiterate the recommendation for the 7D - it's a major upgrade to the 30D you have, and will serve you well for many years. The excellent AF system and fast frame rate are great for wildlife (and for kids!).


Honestly, I'd consider holding off on the 70-200mm zoom for the time being. 200mm is not going to be long enough for your safari trip, and teleconverters really degrade image quality of zoom lenses (they're optimized for use with supertele primes such as the 300mm f/2.8L IS that Rick suggested). I can tell you that my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens + 1.4x II extender does not produce images as good as the 100-400mm, and a 2x TC has a much bigger negative impact on IQ. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI, while still a good lens, has the lowest IQ of any of the 5 available 70-200mm zooms, while the f/2.8 IS MkII tops the list with the f/4 IS essentially equivalent. Personally, I found the 70-200mm focal length to be somewhat awkward on my 7D - it's too long for indoor use, and too short for many outdoor uses when compared to a 100-400mm or 70-300mm lens. (I use the 70-200 II a lot more on my 5DII.)

A few things I don't like about the 100-400, although there are many things to like. The weight (although similar to the 70-200 2.8), the IS implementation (2 stops), and for every day use I wouldn't need anywhere near 400mm, and would probably want a larger apature. Does that make sense?

I'll echo Rick (and disagree with Joel) - the 400mm f/5.6 prime is not going to be that great for a safari - even 2-stop IS helps a lot at 400mm. The IQ of the 100-400mm is quite good. If you think you'll have no real use for the 200-400mm focal range for your everyday shooting down the line, I'd consider renting the 100-400mm for the safari. Also, carrying a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 100-400mm is likely not a good idea (especially for the climb!).


Although the 17-85mm is the last on your upgrade list, I think the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 offer much better IQ and are worthwhile upgrades to the 17-85mm lens. Of the two, I'd prefer the faster 17-55mm, which IMO is the best 'walkaround' lens for a 1.6x crop camera.


Here's a suggestion: buy the 7D and the 17-55mm f/2.8 now. That will leave reasonable £ left over for other items - renting a longer lens for the trip, more CF cards (faster ones - UDMA - are good to support the fast frame rate of the 7D), a circular polarizing filter (77mm will fit both the 17-55mm and the 100-400mm), maybe a new bag (I like the Lowepro Flipside 400, which should hold all your gear). Down the line, get the 70-200mm f/4L IS for your everyday use.


Sounds like your heading for quite an adventure! We wussed out on climbingKilimanjarowhen we went (although we were treated to stunning views of the mountain on the flight from Zanzibar intoKilimanjaro airport on our way to Arusha), although we did climb much lower volcanoes in Rwanda to visit mountain gorillas.
<div>Either way, good luck with your decisions and have a great trip! </div>



<div></div>