Lenses for Canon 7D

[miketoll]

The new 70-300L lens gets a poor review here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...usm_review.htm
Don't know if he got a bad copy or what.

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by miketoll

The new 70-300L lens gets a poor review here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...usm_review.htm
Don't know if he got a bad copy or what.

that makes interesting reading, and from a reviewer who's actually worth listening to.

[byteme]

For what its worth I own a Canon 70x200 L f.4 and a Canon 100x400 L

I recently rented a 70x300 L for a weekend wondering if I would get a "two for the price of one" compromise.

Sadly my answer was no. The 70x300 is a wonderful lens. But like the 100x400 it needs good light to get the best from it. The sweet spot I found at f8 but despite a damn good IS system hand held shots in typical gloomy Spring days in the UK found it wanting as does the 100x400

I was unwilling to let go of the extra focal length of the 100x400 for no real benefit

...........and I have always loved the 70x200 anyway.

So the rental 70x300 went back and I remain with my two lens that have justified their place in the camera bag

[Tangata]

Thanks everyone; some really interesting comments over the last week and some excellent references.

It certainly looks as though the 70 – 200 is the lens to go for.

She who controls the purse tells me that prices will bottom out in June and to wait until then to buy – how she knows that I have no idea!

The question now is can I pry the purse open far enough to get the f 2.8 model with IS.

[miketoll]

Originally Posted by Tangata

The question now is can I pry the purse open far enough to get the f 2.8 model with IS.

LOL, only you will have an inkling on that one!

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Tangata

The question now is can I pry the purse open far enough to get the f 2.8 model with IS.

well worth trying... the f2.8 IS is a truely amazing lens

[Tangata]

I'm sure it is, but at almost twice the price and twice the weight is the extra stop worth it?

[postcardcv]

Personally I don't find the extra weight to be an issue. I had the non-IS f4 version before and when got the f2.8 IS I kept the f4 as a lighter option, however the f2.8 is so much better that I never used the f4 again (sold it a few months later). I will happily shoot all day with it, once you see the results you soon forget the weight.

[Takahashi]

Hi, a late return to this thread, but I reckon it's relevant enough given that I've now acquired both a 100-400L and a 70-200 2.8L mkII.

Yep, as painful as it was financially, I'm well pleased... with both lenses. The reason I decided on both was simple; I'm a lazy git, and a bit anal when it comes to allowing any kind of alien particulates into me camera's internals - I HATE changing lenses, especially in the field. As a result, I now have the 70-200 on my 7D, and the 100-400 on the 500D for "joint events" such as racing and anything else that might require the speed of the former and the reach of the latter. However, if I'm only birding, the 100-400 will be on 7D, and for general walkaround, the 70-200 remains on the 7D, with the 17-55 f2.8 on the 500D.
The 100-400 is a great lens, let down only buy the f4.5-5.6 aperture, IMO. The push/pull zoom is an acquired taste, but takes no more than one session to get to grips with.
I now feel as though the only gap in my arsenal is in the area of macro, where I'm currently using a 28-year-old 50mm f1.8 on Kenko tubes, but in a year or so I'll probably lay out for a 180mm macro or similar. Skint? I may be, but blissfully glassed-out I most certainly am. Now then... where to find the money to renew my soon-to-expire RSPB membership...

[miketoll]

Hah, you lucky so and so! Are you single by any chance?