Canon lens advice needed please

[NigelT]

Hi

I have been using a Bigma and a 70-300 Sigma Zoom on my 40D canon. I have now got a 7D and wish to improve my glass while reducing weight (camera kit not me!).

I cannot decide between the Canon f4 70-200 L or the ISM version.
I am aware that the difference in cost is about £500 and am therefore unsure if the extra cost is sensible. (Then of course there's there 70-300 USM IS zoom in black ! for a similar cost to the f4 L but is it as good?)

I want a lens I can take around with me along cliff paths in Corwall and Pembroke so that I can take pics of general landscapes as well as birds.
Choughs, Stone Chats and Raven are common along the coast paths and can turn up relatively close.

Unfortunately I find carrying the 'Bigma' any distance is uncomfortable. I am retired and have a slight back problem so wish to reduce the load.

Although the Sigma zoom is a good lens I would like to utilise the excellence of the Canon 7D body to take pics as I go and a few movie clips.

A purchase of this kind is a one off lifetime purchase for me and I don't want to wish I had done something else later so any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

[Fourwings]

I own a Bigma and whilst I love the lens and would not part with it I agree that it is a heavy beast of a thing to haul round all day.

Personally I'd be a bit wary of dropping right down to 200mm maximum magnification after having the bigma, I think you'd find it far more limiting than you imagine.

Have you considered the Canon 100 - 400mm L series zoom? its a fantastic quality lens and will really bring out the best in your new 7D, plus its considerably lighter than the Bigma.

[slimrbp]

It's a tricky choice to make. Have you considered hiring the lenses first to try them out?

I recently did that with the 100-400 L, I was considering buying and renting one really helped to make my decision.

[RobSutton]

I've got a Canon f4 70-200 L and it produces lovely results. How about a 1.4 convertor to go with it and with the better results at high ISO the 7D gives save some money by not bothering with the ISM version and just using a higher shutter speed.

[DanJeffery]

I was going to suggest the 100-400mm L which I have and love. But then I saw that with the Bigma weight was an issue. I don't know how much the bigma weighs. But the 100-400mm L is pretty heavy.

One aspect of the Bigma that I envy is that I beleive the tripod collar has a long foot with a grip so it can be used as a carry handle if rotated to the top of the lens. This must be a pretty comfortable way to carry the heavy lens/camera cpombination.

[BillyPilgrim]

Have you given any thought to getting 2 primes?

The Canon 400mm f/ 5.6 and the 7d is a fantastic combination for birds (just look at Ollies images) and the Canon 50mm f/ 1.8 would do a very good job with the landscapes.

Total weight of these 2 lenses is 1.38kg which is 462g lighter than the bigma!

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

Have you given any thought to getting 2 primes?

The Canon 400mm f/ 5.6 and the 7d is a fantastic combination for birds (just look at Ollies images) and the Canon 50mm f/ 1.8 would do a very good job with the landscapes.

Thanks for that Billy. The Canon 400mm f5.6L USM lens is certainly the way I would go. It's an awesome combination with the 7D. The only drawback, although I don't find it a drawback but some people might is the 400mm F5.6L USM has no image stabilisation. I don't find this a problem though as it's a pretty light lens as 400mm lenses go and I use a carbon fibre monopod for static shots and always hand hold it for in flight shots.

The other thing to consider is the lack of zoom with the 400mm F5.6L USM. After the versatility of the Sigma 50-500mm you may miss the zoom but in my opinion that's more than compensated for by image quality.

[Geoff F]

I would say that your first decision is to choose a suitable lens size, then consider your budget.

I would suggest that anything below 300 mm would be a bit on the small size for birds (in fact I would consider 300 mm could be on the small side) and 100 mm is too large for landscape.

This is where your Bigma makes the ideal compromise.

Using 2 lenses is a good thought but while the Canon 400 is a good lens you would probably also want a converter and a tripod, etc. And Billy's suggestion of a 50 mm, which is a popular size, does leave a bit of a large gap in your 'armoury' middle range. Plus the 400 mm does have a rather long minimum focusing distance, although idea for birds.

I have the Canon 70-300 IS and find it a 'good for the price' lens which is reasonably sharp in the middle aperture range. There may be better alternatives but they are either heavy or expensive.

I coupled this lens with a Canon 28-135 IS which gave me excellent coverage at a reasonable price/weight. But most of the time I now use a Canon 24-105 IS and a Sigma 150-500 IS, but that combo is both heavy and a touch pricey.

So all in all, I think you have a difficult choice here. As an alternative though, how do you carry your Bigma? I'm just wondering if a decent backpack may enable you to continue carrying this lens. I would fully recommend the Lowenpro Mini Trekker which is easy on the back and has plenty of capacity.

[natureshooter]

Hi

I use the 70-200 f4l with 7d,now with the 18mp it makes up for the lack of size,i shoot lots with mine,crop and you will still have loads of pixels left.

cheap but exceptional performance.

gaz

Flickr: staffordshire and west midlands bird and wildlife photography.

[Jason Claxton]

I've got the Canon 100-400L(albeit on a 450D),its a versatile lens and light to me,its great but if somebody with the 400 prime gets along side you(like one my good pals does),it can't compete in terms of shutter speeds (he was getting up to 4x greater shutter speeds! than me on the fastest/same f. on a 40D, potentially miles better for freezing those action/ flight shots).


Cheers Jason.