Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 7d or 100-400

  1. #1

    7d or 100-400

    i have a 450d and the stock 18-55 + the 55-250
    i am looking at buying either the 7d and the 100-400
    i mainly shoot surf and at the moment the actual surfer is blury and almost unidentifable
    i want to be able to know who the surfer is by looking at the photos
    i have about $500 at the but i will have enough money in about 6months
    any suggestions
    ive seen a post like this but they had a bigger lens already so yeah
    thanks

  2. #2
    Not much help, but just get both, for birds, sport and wildlife the 7D and 100-400 is a great combo.

  3. #3
    Regular Visitor Wayne63's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Jul 2011
    Location
    Broadwater
    Posts
    3,511
    Welcome to AP, Enjoy the site, join in on the forums and look forward to seeing some of your pics
    Regards
    Wayne

    CC Always welcome as its a great way of Learning

  4. #4
    Administrator (Site Owner) ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    13,147
    Nice Intro, How about telling us something about yourself? I am moving your thread to the Camera Gear forum!

    Oh and post some of your surf shots (into the Photo Forums), it may not be the camera or lens, rather your technique or settings, with your current gear.
    Last edited by ricktas; 11-04-2012 at 3:19pm.
    RICK
    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    www.tassiephotos.com

  5. #5
    If it's surf photos get the 100-400. You will have ample light and won't go above 800ISO. 7D gives and avantage of tracking and FPS. With the 100-400 you'll be able to get the photo but 7D and a 55-250 is a little short for surf and won't be able to get the photos you want.

  6. #6
    A 7D would be about 20% better than your current camera. Maybe as much as 30% for some things, or as little a 5% for some others. A 7D will get used 100% of the time that you use your camera. A 7D will not do anything you can't do with your existing camera.

    A 100-400 would be about 200% better than your existing lenses. Maybe as much as 1000% for some things if they are far away. A 100-400 will get used less than 50% of the time that you use your camera, but you can use your existing lenses the other 50% of the time and be no further backwards. A 100-400 will not do many things you simply can't do at all with your existing camera, and do many other things better.

    Is there even a question? Get the 100-400.
    Tony

    Edit and critique at will. Tokina 10-17 fish, Canon 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, TS-E 24, 35/1.4, 60 macro, 100L macro, 500/4, Wimberley, MT-24EX, 580EX-II, 1D IV, 7D, 5D II, 50D.

  7. #7
    Sunrise Chaser William's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,325
    Bet I can get a clear shot with the gear you have
    Canon : 30D, and sometimes the 5D mkIII , Sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8, Canon 24-105 f4 L , On loan Sigma 120-400 DG and Canon 17 - 40 f4 L , Cokin Filters




  8. #8
    There'll be a nice little 35/1.4 to add to it tomorrow, I hope, William. I can't afford it but I've wanted one for ages and the other day I spat the dummy and ordered.

    Or do you mean the OP's gear? Sure you can - but not at the longer focal lengths unless everything else is perfect. Once you go past about 150mm, kit lenses just don't compare, and beyond 400mm, the difference is larger still. In contrast, the difference between a landscape shot with an 18-55 and that same shot with a 24-70/2.8L is quite small.
    Last edited by Tannin; 11-04-2012 at 8:55pm.

  9. #9
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker Bennymiata's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,597
    Bodies last for a year or 2, but lenses are good almost forever.

    The 100-400 is a great lens. I love mine, and this lens was for me the clincher to go Canon instead of Nikon.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=jacobmabb;1006126]i have a 450d and the stock 18-55 + the 55-250
    i am looking at buying either the 7d and the 100-400
    i mainly shoot surf and at the moment the actual surfer is blury and almost unidentifable
    i want to be able to know who the surfer is by looking at the photos
    i have about $500 at the but i will have enough money in about 6months




    Don't understand the blurry statement, is it because you are too far away or not using the right shutter speed? I own 500D, 7D, 55-250 and 100-400 and the 55-250 is not blurry at all, it is quite sharp and easily matched the sharpness of the 100-400. The 100-400 is much better color and contrast and slightly faster to focus. Could you clrify what you mean?

    James
    Last edited by James02; 21-05-2012 at 3:03pm.

  11. #11
    Hi James!

    Quote Originally Posted by James02 View Post
    the 55-250 is not blurry at all, it is quite sharp and easily matched the sharpness of the 100-400
    Something is wrong here. The 55-250 does OK up to about 150mm or so - not great but OK - but becomes very blurry beyond that length. The 100-400, in contrast, starts out sharp and stays excellent all the way through. There are some who say it's a it soft wide open at 400mm but compared to the 55-250, we are talking minnows and whales. Simply, the 100-400 is a vastly better lens. I have seen this for myself (I have owned two 100-400s and yes, at one time I owned a 55-250 - it was a good lens for the price, which is not at all the same thing as a good lens) and it is confirmed by any number of reputable reviewers. So something doesn't add up.

    James, if you are getting similar sharpness at (say) 200mm out of your 55-250 and your 100-400, there are only three ways I can explain it. (1) There is something wrong with your 100-400 and it should be sent back to Canon to be fixed. It should be lots sharper than a 55-250. (2) You aren't comparing very carefully. (3) There is something freakishly good about your 55-250. I can't really see how (3) would happen, so it must be (1) or (2).

    Maybe it would be good to start a new thread and post some test shots - follow the usual routine: good tripod, mirror lock-up, timer release, same subject, same lighting. By looking at the tests, we can get a handle on whether your 100-400 is faulty or not.

  12. #12
    The Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime might be lighter and better for surf photos. Ask yourself "when will you use anything less than 400mm". It will be a slight improvement over the 100-400. Not cheap but you want the good stuff and the prime will be slightly cheaper than the 100-400.
    My point is that some people who use a 100-400 find them using it on 400mm all the time.

  13. #13
    Hi Tannon

    Sorry but I've had two different 55-250 lens over the years and both were very sharp at 250mm. My 100-400 is also very sharp. Both produce excellent pictures and no I don't need my eyes checked. I am not new at photography and my 100-400 does not need to be fixed.

    No I'm not going through all the trouble to prove to you what I said. If you don't believe me fine.

    James
    Last edited by James02; 22-05-2012 at 11:07pm.

  14. #14

  15. #15
    55-250 is not sharp at the corners and vignettes at the long end like someone with a sleepy eyelid.

  16. #16
    Accidental Photographer phild's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2008
    Location
    Launceston
    Posts
    417
    I have to agree with Tony, the 100-400 is the only real choice bewteen the two. That said if I were buying I'd opt for the 400mm F5.6 as Daryl suggests, I doubt you would ever want anything shorter for surf photography, plus the 400mm prime is lighter and marginally sharper.

    Having long glass isn't the only thing you need, if you're not already using one, a good tripod and head is a must have.
    Phil

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •