Upgrade dilemma - which route would you take? (1 Viewer)

My current set up is all-Canon with 7D (original) with 100-400L (original). I am looking at different upgrade paths and stalled myself to a standstill:

1. 7D (original) and buy the 500mm - this is the gold standard and not sure I can stretch that far
2. 7D (original) with 100-400 Mk II
3. 7D (original) with 300mm f2.8 (original) and 2xtc (MkII) - I could do this if I really, really wanted it
4. 7D with Sigma 120-300f2.8 and 2xtc - another one I could push myself to
5. 7D2 with my existing 100-400 (original)

I have always believed in 'glass first' but the improved performance of the 7D2 sounds so tempting and would be equivalent (shutter-speed wise) to taking the 100-400 to f4 at 400mm.

Decisions, decisions....

Spidermike said:

My current set up is all-Canon with 7D (original) with 100-400L (original). I am looking at different upgrade paths and stalled myself to a standstill:

1. 7D (original) and buy the 500mm - this is the gold standard and not sure I can stretch that far
2. 7D (original) with 100-400 Mk II
3. 7D (original) with 300mm f2.8 (original) and 2xtc (MkII) - I could do this if I really, really wanted it
4. 7D with Sigma 120-300f2.8 and 2xtc - another one I could push myself to
5. 7D2 with my existing 100-400 (original)

I have always believed in 'glass first' but the improved performance of the 7D2 sounds so tempting and would be equivalent (shutter-speed wise) to taking the 100-400 to f4 at 400mm.

Decisions, decisions....

Click to expand...

I think a bit more info is needed for people to make suggestions. Such as

1- What is your max budget to upgrade?
2- What types of shooting do you do? BIF? Waders? Passerines? low light? Waterfowl? All of the above?
3- Do you find yourself needing more reach?
4- What part of your gear do you feel needs improving? What do you feel is holding you back?

Hi Isaac

Thank you for your reply.

1- My maximum budget would be about £2,700 (I can get a secnod hand 300mm f2.8L Mk1 for that) if the quality is worth it
2- I tend to do general wildlife and birds in flight. My summer obsession is kingfishers and because of its location it tends to be in shadow a lot of the day so low-ish light is the main challenge
3- You could always do with more reach (!!) but at the moment I am getting acceptable crops with my 100-400. I think a 500mm would be as much as would 'need' so I am basing my decisions around that 400-500 range
5- the biggest challenge I have is the noise on the 7D. Having to crop, and/or recover shadow detail really accentuates this expecially when trying to maintain shutter speeds which is where the 500mm f4 comes (extra 100mm is a small increase but combined with f4 = lower ISO. But at that aperture DOF will be thin); meanwhile the 300mm f2.8+2xtc offers more reach which means less cropping. The the 7D2 seems to offer about a stop improvement would take me to about the same place as well.

Of course, if I could afford the 300mm f2.8, what about the 7D2+100-400 MkII (dammit!) but I am not convinced that the MKII lens offers a huge amount over the original other than the improved IS.

Spidermike said:

Hi Isaac

Thank you for your reply.

1- My maximum budget would be about £2,700 (I can get a secnod hand 300mm f2.8L Mk1 for that) if the quality is worth it
2- I tend to do general wildlife and birds in flight. My summer obsession is kingfishers and because of its location it tends to be in shadow a lot of the day so low-ish light is the main challenge
3- You could always do with more reach (!!) but at the moment I am getting acceptable crops with my 100-400. I think a 500mm would be as much as would 'need' so I am basing my decisions around that 400-500 range
5- the biggest challenge I have is the noise on the 7D. Having to crop, and/or recover shadow detail really accentuates this expecially when trying to maintain shutter speeds which is where the 500mm f4 comes (extra 100mm is a small increase but combined with f4 = lower ISO. But at that aperture DOF will be thin); meanwhile the 300mm f2.8+2xtc offers more reach which means less cropping. The the 7D2 seems to offer about a stop improvement would take me to about the same place as well.

Of course, if I could afford the 300mm f2.8, what about the 7D2+100-400 MkII (dammit!) but I am not convinced that the MKII lens offers a huge amount over the original other than the improved IS.

Click to expand...

The 100-400ii is supposed to be quite a bit better in IQ as well IS. Although I do not own either and can not speak from personal experience.

I own the 7d2 and love it, but it is not the camera if you need excellent low light performance. That is the age old question. Reach, speed and great focusing system or low light performance?

I have seen some beautiful shots with the 7d2 pls 100-400ii and 1.4x. It is a great and not too expensive combo. I have also seen some really bad shots with the combo that are of course in no way indicative of the capabilities of the gear.

The 300 2.8 is a fantastic lens but way too heavy for me to hand hold. Have you ever held that thing. Feels like a brick. I have used a friends lens for a bit and could not wait to put it down.

Other options are one of the 3 150-600 combos plus a 5d3 or 7d2.

I am on the fence about upgrading to a 500 f4 or 400 DO ii as well. Interested in what you eventually wind up doing...

I have the same combination myself. I am thinking that moving to the 100 - 400 mark ii is the way for to go. For me the improved minimum focus of the mark ii is a big bonus because I take a lot of general wildlife shots and, especially when abroad, carrying a macros as well - for butterflies etc. - is a pain, especially as I often go for all day walks when with my family. I think if I were concentrating on birds, and didn't walk so far, I would be tempted to get the new Sigma 150 - 600. Reviews I've read on the mark ii vary on how much sharper it is from a little to a lot, but rave about the improved close focusing, focusing speed, improved IS and better build quality.

Spidermike said:

Hi Isaac

Thank you for your reply.

1- My maximum budget would be about £2,700 (I can get a secnod hand 300mm f2.8L Mk1 for that) if the quality is worth it
2- I tend to do general wildlife and birds in flight. My summer obsession is kingfishers and because of its location it tends to be in shadow a lot of the day so low-ish light is the main challenge
3- You could always do with more reach (!!) but at the moment I am getting acceptable crops with my 100-400. I think a 500mm would be as much as would 'need' so I am basing my decisions around that 400-500 range
5- the biggest challenge I have is the noise on the 7D. Having to crop, and/or recover shadow detail really accentuates this expecially when trying to maintain shutter speeds which is where the 500mm f4 comes (extra 100mm is a small increase but combined with f4 = lower ISO. But at that aperture DOF will be thin); meanwhile the 300mm f2.8+2xtc offers more reach which means less cropping. The the 7D2 seems to offer about a stop improvement would take me to about the same place as well.

Of course, if I could afford the 300mm f2.8, what about the 7D2+100-400 MkII (dammit!) but I am not convinced that the MKII lens offers a huge amount over the original other than the improved IS.

Click to expand...

No matter what choice you make there will be trade offs. Since you mention birds in flight and general wildlife I would take the 500 f4 off the list. It is hard to handhold and even if you can it is hard for general BIF shots because of the mass. I use a 600f4 II and handhold it well. However I do find faster and more eratic flying birds are super tough with this kind of mass.

If you go with the 300 f2,8 it will be great at 420 f4 but I'm concerned with the focus speed for birds in flight at 600mm plus it would use all you budget and you would want to keep your 100-400 zoom.

Third option is to sell the 7D and 100-400 and but the 7D2 and 100-400 II. You get improved ISO as mentioned. The focusing system is very fast and accurate. With the 7D2 you also get the ability to add a 1.4 extender to a 5.6 lens and still have auto focus. The original 100-400 I don't think would be up to par to taking a extender so that's why I suggest the 100-400 II. I do have this combo and am getting some great flight shots with it.

Tough choice either way.

Spidermike said:

My current set up is all-Canon with 7D (original) with 100-400L (original). I am looking at different upgrade paths and stalled myself to a standstill:

1. 7D (original) and buy the 500mm - this is the gold standard and not sure I can stretch that far
2. 7D (original) with 100-400 Mk II
3. 7D (original) with 300mm f2.8 (original) and 2xtc (MkII) - I could do this if I really, really wanted it
4. 7D with Sigma 120-300f2.8 and 2xtc - another one I could push myself to
5. 7D2 with my existing 100-400 (original)

I have always believed in 'glass first' but the improved performance of the 7D2 sounds so tempting and would be equivalent (shutter-speed wise) to taking the 100-400 to f4 at 400mm.

Decisions, decisions....

Click to expand...

It is difficult to say which would be the best option, I know which is best for me, but that doesn't mean that it is best for you!
1. 7D + 500 F4. This would be my choice. However you will have to budget for a decent tripod and head and remember that it is heavy. Also you will have the same ISO limitations that you already have. Against that the Canon 500 F4 L IS is a simply superb lens that will be more than up to future upgrades.
2. I haven't used the 100-400 Mk2 yet but I am reading awfully nice things about it! Whilst I have no use for the IS or zoom functions the improved IQ and close focusing look very tempting.
3. 300 F2.8 L IS + 2 x extender Mk2 - er no. 300 F2.8 L IS + Canon 2 x extender Mk3 = yes. The Mk3 extender is far superior to the Mk2, my Mk2 was just a waste of money. The Canon 300 F2.8 (any version) is a superb lens (probably why I have one!), mine is the L IS Mk1. I have tried the Mk2 and it is better but the Mk1 is so good that I didn't feel that the Mk2 was worth the extra. My only concern is that you will end up using extenders most, if not all, the time and whilst it works very well with extenders this situation is not ideal.
4. 120-300 Sigma F2.8 + extenders. This has the versatility of being a zoom but your IQ and AF will not be as good as option 3. The Sigma is a great lens but the Canon is just better but without the zoom function.
5. 7D2 + your 100-400. Cheapest option and the original 100-400 can be very good - mine was. You will have more advanced AF and better ISO performance. It is debatable how much the ISO improvement is but it seems to be about 1 stop - so pretty useful.

For what it's worth I mainly shoot small birds or larger ones further away so, to me, reach is everything. This leads to very heavy backpacks and very light wallets! If you need reach and mobility then the Canon 100-400 Mk2 looks very tempting as it appears to have very good IQ and weighs next to nothing. Alternatively the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 is heavier but simply stellar at 300mm, extremely good at 420mm and very good (in good light) at 600mm. If mobility is not an issue then sell a kidney (that's why you were born with 2!) and start looking for a good used 500/600/800. The 600 F4 L IS appears to be the best value at the moment but it is a bit of a beast and a challenge to shoot hand held!

I too am pondering the upgrade path, though in my case the camera body definitely needs to be first in line. I am going from a Canon Rebel XT (not sure what that was designated outside the US) from about 10 years ago.

Might I suggest that you go with option 5 and try the 7DMkII body only first and see if that satisfies you with your existing glass.

Then, you could add the 1.4x or 2x TC MkIII and see how that works out. That is probably a better approach than heavier alternative lens. Just remember that the 1.4 TC will cost you one f/stop of light and the 2x will cost 2 f/stops but the 7D MkII has a greatly extended ISO range which should more than handle that.

I just ran a quick check and found that, at least in the US, that would come in at about £1550 w/tax. Remember too that the prices may drop a little more as Canon is releasing some new bodies at the end this month.

Some interesting comments and recommendations and it demonstrates we all have different opinion of the same gear.
Financial restrictions are not the only ones it seems, age and fitness make a difference too, as does the length of time you have owned a piece of equipment.
When my first 300f2.8 arrived I was staggered by the sheer size of the beast but now I never ever tripod mount it. It's my carry around lens. My old MK1 500mm was too heavy to hand old for more than a few seconds, my replacement Mk11 is out of the tripod as often as on it. I find it very hand holdable and it has replaced my 300mm as my BIF lens because I have gone full frame body wise.
The general opinion is that the 7D2 is a marked improvement over the original and that would be my first move in your position. With a 1.6 crop body you probably have as much reach with your 100-400 as you need.
I too would hold back and decide the next move after that but I would lean towards a 300f2.8 for outstanding speed and low light capabilities. Save up for one but keep the 100-400 as back up and for flexibility.
Good luck in your choice. Dave

Prices on 7D mkii starting to fall. £250 cash back on 100-400 mkii with 7D mkii. Sell or exchange your mki camera and lens and you should have a much improved image quality, shorter focussing distance, better autofocus and the ability to use an extender (original 100-400 with extender was only a little better than using a milk bottle!) for close to your budget.

Thank you every one for your comments and I am sort of pleased to see that there is no 'easy path' so at least I am not mssing anything obvious!

I took out the 7D/100-400 with the 1.4TC today and I have thought very much along the lines of OWen and Roger - am I willing to take a substantially heavier lens when the 7D2 may well give me a fair bit of the improvement I am looking for: that old 'glass first' adage still rattles around, though but the 100-400 remains a good pieve of kit.

I have also recently bought a half-gimbal head (Lensmaster RH-1) and that would certainy help with the larger lenses, but I first need to see how using the gimbal compares to the freedom of hand-holding.

Roger - those cashback offers are making it very attractive to trade in the body! I have some other gear to sell so reckon I could rustle up a fair bit towards the 7D2 and maybe they will have similar offers for the lens soon.

Interesting how many of us are in the same boat��
With prices the way they are Im inclined to go from 40D to 7D2 and use with existing 100-400 which has been a very good workhorse for the price, and go through the learning curve with very different camera but comfortably familiar lens. Then at some point in future, when dust and prices have settled, consider lens upgrade.I'm pretty sure my upgrade with be to mk2 lens as it suits my modus operandi. The big whites are too dear and the sigmas too heavy.
Russ

My wife has been getting good results, handheld, with her recently purchased 7D2 and her 100-400 Mk I with a Canon 1.4x TC Mk II.

Mike

Sandpiper said:

My wife has been getting good results, handheld, with her recently purchased 7D2 and her 100-400 Mk I with a Canon 1.4x TC Mk II.

Mike

Click to expand...

One of the things I am considering since the MkI would save me $400-$500. I would like a nice album of high quality ID shots, but I am not a professional taking shots for National Geographic, so I wonder if that is not good enough for me. Is she manually focusing?

Owen,

The 7D Mk II will autofocus with the 100-400 Mk I and Canon 1.4x Mk II TC at f/8 with the centre focus point only. The 7D Mk I will not autofocus with the same combo. With the 7D Mk II it is not necessary to manual focus.

Mike

Thanks Mike. I do have to manually focus quite often regardless of the camera I would be using as I do a lot of Passerines that are back in the trees or brush and hence I am shooting through a confusion of branches. The camera simply doesn't know what to focus on as the field is so cluttered. I should have just said directly that I was wondering how easy it is to get a sharp focus manually. I'll see in a few weeks anyway as I will be buying a whole new rig in about two weeks and have a brick and mortar that I will probably just go into so I can try out and make a decision on lenses.

Owen Krout said:

I should have just said directly that I was wondering how easy it is to get a sharp focus manually.

Click to expand...

Would the bird be there long enoughto use magnified LiveView for focusing?