Ready and where to buy Canon 7D II

[Pup]

Hi everyone in the market and looking for help on to where is the best place to purchase a new camera as I'm ready to upgrade all my camera gear and after reading up I've picked the 7D II.
Yes I would love to get a Canon 1D II but not in my budget so I have settle for a Canon 7D II (super kit) with a added EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens.
I take a lot action sports photo's, Any leads to where is the best place would be great.
I've have had a look online and price from the Canon website to other sites vary a lot.

Thanks

[Mary Anne]

This could be hard to believe:: I bought a new lens three weeks ago and as my favourite Bricks and Mortar Photo Gear Shop had closed down I searched on line for the cheapest place to buy one.
Being a very heavy lens for me I needed to try it on my camera 7D MK11 to make sure I could hand hold it even for only a little while.
Living nowhere near this particular cheapest priced shop West of Brisbane I rang around to find out which shop had it, Ted's would you believe and easy to get to by car so they put one away for me.
Best Service ever after letting me try one on my camera I decided to buy it.. I asked if they priced matched Yes the lovely Lady said what is the cheapest price you have found.
I gave her the price and the name of the shop, away she goes and comes back within a minute and told me we can do better than that to give me a price $50 lower than that other shop.
She also gave me a scratchie and I received a cleaning kit price on back of package $25, something I do not need though it is there if I do in future..

So shop around your area first you never know what bargain you will pick up.. Sometimes on line is not always the cheapest then you have to pay postage as well.

[Tannin]

See this thread: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...nd-some-shocks!

Are you sure you want a 28-300? It's very expensive, very heavy, and rather slow. I'd have thought you'd do better with something like a 70-200 or a 100-300, even a 100-400, plus a general purpose zoom. Even a cheap GP zoom wil out-perform a 28-300 at the short end, and any of the lenses just mentioned will be superior at the long end.

Yes, you'd need to change lenses from time to time, but if that bothers you, just get a second body. To keep costs somewhere near sane, I'd look at something like this:

• 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS (not much more than half the price of a 28-300, half the size, not much more than half the weight, and by all acounts simply superb quality)
• Your choice of the many general-purpose zooms (a 15-85 maybe, or a 24-70/4, even a kit lens will match the 28-300 in the normal range, and anything better than a kit will outperform it easily).
• A pair of 80D bodies.

The whole lot will cost about the same as a 7D II and a 28-300, weigh about the same, and give you unparalled flexibility.

Better yet, see if you can pick up a second-hand 100-400 Mark 1. These excellent lenses should be readily available now that the Mark II is out, and be very reasonably priced. The amount you save there would go a fair way towards upgrading one of your 80Ds to a 7D II, or (if you'd rather go that way) to a 6D, or (if fine fast glass is your thing) upgrading the GP zoom to something like a 24-70/2.8L.

[Brian500au]

I have to agree with Tony above and question your choice of the 28-300 lens for sports? Have you tried this lens? It is not normally the first pick for a sports lens.

If I was doing sports I think I would be more interested in either the 70-200 (inside) or the preferred 100-400 (outside). I think if I was planning to spend a little over 5K I might want to just have a look at some of the gear some of the guys on this forum who specialise in sports are using.

[Tannin]

Oops! I just realised that you are already buying two lenses - googling shows me that the "Super Kit" is apparently a 7D II plus an EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. Are you sure about that? For about the same money, you could have the excellent Canon 15-85. No faster, but beautifully built and significantly sharper. Very long zoom ratios such as that of the 18-135 (or the 28-300!) always have to be paid for one way or another, usually with some combination of sharpness, CR, distortion, price, weight and bulk). Or any of about four different fast general-purpose zooms such as 17-50/2.8 from Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron, not to mention the outstanding but rather pricey Canon 17-55/2.8.

I don't own a 15-85 but I bought one for my girlfriend and use it quite often. I particularly like it because it's significantly wider than the various 17-xxx and 18-xxx models, and at the short end, 2 or 3 mm is lots! I mostly use a 24-105 / 5D II combo as my general-purpose daily driver, which is (from a field-of-view standpoint) identical to the 15-85 on a crop body, and seldom feel any need to switch over to a dedicated ultra-wide. 15mm ( = 24 on full frame) is usually wide enough. But 18mm isn't! On the down side, the 15-85 is not a fast lens. This may or may not bother you. But if you ever do things like go indoors to photograph the celebrations after a game, or attend an end-of-season awards night and dinner, you will definately wish you had a fast lens. I find that the constant f/4 (effectively f/2.8 because I'm on full frame) of the 24-105 is often enough for that, but if I had (say) a 24-70/2.8 (on FF) or a 17-55/2.8 (on crop) I would certainly use it! In practice, if I'm battling for light indoors I use the 35/1.4 prime and live without zoom. Or use flash, of course, but that's a whole different thing.

Extra length on the long end of a general purpose lens only really matters if you don't have something longer (e.g., a 70-200) to use. And even then, you are mostly buying extra length at the cost of reduced image quality (18-135, all of those do-everything-badly 18-200ish superzooms), speed (ditto), or cost and weight (28-300).

Perhaps you have thought through all these things already and just want to know where to buy the gear you have selected after long consideration. But I'll add one final thought. Lenses last (if they are good ones). Cameras don't. I bought my first DSLR and two lenses in 2005. They were a cheap kit lens (long gone) and a 100-400L. I still have the 100-400 and use it frequently. Meanwhile, I replaced the 20D with a 40D, the 40D with a 50D, the 50D with a 1D III, and the 1D III with a 1D IV. That's four different cameras (more than four because I run multiple bodies, but setting that aside and just considering the main ones) and just one good quality lens. That is not an unusual experience. Good lenses last practically forever. Cameras don't. They wear out, or you replace them with something better. Rule-of-thumb: you get three times as much life out of a good lens as you do out of a camera. So, if in doubt, spend a bit less on the camera (which you wil replace before too long anyway) and a bit more on the lens (which will serve you faithfully for many years).

[Pup]

WOW thank you so much guys really appreciate the feed back.
Lens I really didn't have much of an idea on, I was pretty much going for length, as I needed to get close to the subject matter as it will be a fare distance away at times.
With the recommendations on the lens given I'll have a good look at them all.
Camera I'm needing a high FPS and the 7D II has what I'm after 10 FPS and at a reasonable price. The 1D will came in time.
I'll currently hold off from buying for now and look into even more. I still have a few months before I really need a new camera. I was wanting to get it now so I can have a play before I need it.
Again Thank You so much this is why I returned to AP.

[Tannin]

Cheers Pup. I'm sure your 7D II will be a wonderful camera.

I ordered mine (still hasn't arrived!) rather than an 80D because it's for bird photography where focus is critical (rather like sport); the frame rate wasn't so important to me. (And to think I spent seven or eight thousand years ago on a 1D III to get just barely 10 fps back when a 40D could only do 5 fps and a 5D 3fps! Now a very affordable $2000 semi-pro body does it with ease!)

You are probably familiar with The Digital Picture http://thedigitalpicture.com already. Bryan doesn't review everything - I feel lost and confused anytime I'm interested in a lens or camera he does not cover - but his reviews of the things he does cover are the most detailed, consisternt, and reliable of any I've seen.

[Cage]

The other consideration is whether to buy from an authorised Australian Canon dealer with the peace of mind of a factory warranty, or try to save a few hundred bucks buying a 'Grey' unit with gawd knows what sort of warranty.

Personally, anything with a PCB or a motor in it I buy local from an authorised dealer.

Re pricing the Canon website is only going to show suggested MRP. 'Google' is your friend with sites like http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...wadres=1&pos=2 to give you an idea of what you should pay.

Being retired I have to shop hard and I've bought my last three cameras from Ryda, and my last two lens from Teds, a site sponsor.

Good luck in your search.

[Tannin]

Interesting link, Kev. Notable that the top three are grey market importers. (Not sure about some of the others.) As mentioned in another thread, I've bought from them (DWI in my case) quite a few times, and had no problems. From memory, I got a 5D II, a flash, and three or four lenses at various different times. I've never been game to buy anything too expensive grey market - for the 1 Series bodies and the long lenses, I always stuck with the legitimate Australian dealers.

Like you, I'm retired now and would find it difficult to cover the cost of something going wrong. Back when I was working full-time, I could shrug and take a chance to save a few hundred dollars. Now that I don't have anything to spare, I've spent the extra to be safe. I'm not sure that that makes any sense though! Seems a bit backwards somehow.

[Cage]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Grey Market after July 1 when all imported goods are liablle for GST.

As you know, currently there is a $1000+ threshold for GST liability, but I can't remember anyone ever saying that they have paid it, with a lot of importers electing to falsely understate the value of the goods.

The ATO is attempting to make importers who exceed $75K annualy collect GST and forward it on to them. Good luck policing that as the ATO has absolutely no jurisdiction overseas. All I can see happening is a lot of off-shore sellers adding GST to your invoice, and pocketing it.

[Pup]

Thanks heaps for even more advice and some very useful links.
Many lens options out there, it's hard to narrow it down just to one.
Yes I agree, if spending a lot I would rather buy local than from a online store. It's that piece of mind if ever something was to go wrong I can walk into the same shop and get it fix.
I have looked at AP sponsor TED's and my nearest shop is in Sydney 2.5hrs away. Otherwise my closest camera shop in Camera House that's it or I have to try the big named companies like Harvey, JB to which most of them don't know what there talking about and just looking for a sale.
Looks like a drive to Sydney but in the mean time I'll keep on reading.
Anything else please let me know.

[Morgo]

Why the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS?

IMO the best lens for the 7D2 for sports and wildlife (within budget reason atleast) is the 100-400 MKII. They were pretty much made for each other.

[Pup]

@Morgo no reason mate just though it would be best suited for my needs but not knowing really what else was out there.
Now knowing more and from the good advice from forum members and with a little more reading to come I'm sure I'll find a better one.
ATM the 70-300mm and the 100-400mm as suggested by a few of you, i'll look into more.

[ameerat42]

Pup. It is astute of Morgo to raise this point. If you want to go into the likes of bird (and small wildlife) photography,
the focal length of 400mm (and with IS) would be heaps more useful than f=300mm (even with IS).

The 28-300 mentioned sounds like an "all-rounder" to some degree, but for the wide end, 28mm is still rather modest
an angle. In (general) addition, such a wide range in a lens may not give optimal performance everywhere.

However, you know your needs best, and this is just an expansion of Morgo's point.

[Cage]

Another way to go would be to skip the 'Super Kit' and just buy a body and the excellent 100-400mm recommended above. For sports and wildlife there is no compensation for focal length.

Add the excellent 50mm f1.8 and you have pretty much covered the field, bar a wide angle. Or, depending on your budget, get the highly regarded Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 and you have an great kit.

[Mark L]

Once you decide what you are going to buy, every week check who may have a good special happening.
I live further away from Sydney than you and my only local option is Hardly Normal. They refuse to do deals on camera gear with no competition locally.
Was ready to buy an 80D when Hardly N... had a weekend with 20% of all cameras.
So I could have got OZ stock about $60 cheaper (after postage) but decided to buy locally just in case something went wrong with the camera. Well something went wrong and it was so easy to drive down the road and have my camera replaced.

[William W]

. . . The 28-300 mentioned sounds like an "all-rounder" to some degree, but for the wide end, 28mm is still rather modes an angle. In (general) addition, such a wide range in a lens may not give optimal performance everywhere.

Just about THAT lens:

The EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L IS USM replaced the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM. I have used the latter.

These are specialist lenses mainly aimed at the Photojournalism Professional who would typically requires or is allowed ONLY one very tough lens and typically would not remove that lens from the camera during any, usually long term assignment.

Although the 28~300 is an improvement in many areas over the 35~350, Image Quality and/or Lens Speed suffers (sometimes dramatically) when these two L Super Zooms compared to L Series Zooms of a lesser Zoom Compass (for example any of the seven 70 to 200 L zooms or the two more recent 100 to 400 L Zooms). Compared to the available 300 L Primes, the two L Super Zooms should not ever be in any considerations for ANY Sports or Bird Photographers’ applications.

There are also several 'much better' and faster Non-L Series Zoom Lenses of lesser Zoom Compass, for one example the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8L IS USM.

One main quality of these two lenses is their Wide Zoom Compass - BUT don't be taken in to concluding that because of that fact these lenses are the "one lens answer" - they are not. It is more the case that these two lenses are the specialist answer when ONLY one lens is permitted and/or available and that lens is most usually to be used on a 135 Format Camera, in very tough conditions.

WW

[Cage]

Pup, as I'm sure you've realised from the above replies, the lens is probably at least as important as the camera, and a quality lens will last you many camera updates.

[Tannin]

William, just for curiosity's sake, could you talk a bit about the circumstances where there is such a restriction to one lens? (It's a bit off-topic, I know, but I'm sure that many readers would be interested.)

[William W]

William, just for curiosity's sake, could you talk a bit about the circumstances where there is such a restriction to one lens? (It's a bit off-topic, I know, but I'm sure that many readers would be interested.)

There was, but maybe not is so much now, quite a few countries which imposed a restriction on what photographic gear was permitted through their borders.

I was only allowed one camera and limited film upon entry to Chinese Taipei. The crew of three, making an History/Documentary (film) was closely monitored and chaperoned and carefully and excluded from filming or photographing various buildings (which in our interpretation were simply of historic and or architectural significance). I worked as the Sound Recordist and also the Lighting Director Film in addition to my job as the Stills Photographer. In simple terms it was necessary for all three people to be multi-skilled and multi-experienced as it was difficult getting three visas, originally only one person was cleared - which would have meant the production would be scraped; even with three it was sometimes difficult to get what was required in the can. There was a little difficulty in some areas of Micronesia also, in the outlaying areas of Guam especially. The Production budget rented the 35 to 350L for me to use. With the value of 20/20 hindsight, I should have bought that lens and sold it second hand later or better still kept it, because the next year I went to Papua and the 35 to 350L was ideal to simply keep on the camera and never change the lens in the humid tropical rainforest and I rented the same lens again, but this second time the money came out of my own pocket. And as 'Cage' mentioned above a good quality lens will last (almost) forever - so I should have just bought it - and if I did that, I would probably still have it today - nearly a 'collector's item' no doubt by now . . . but 'Pup' could drive up and play with it and then he would really understand why a 28 to 300L is probably NOT the lens he needs or wants. So I have used that particular lens twice (35 to 350L).

We are talking the mid 1990s and at that time money was beginning to dry up for funding for in depth educational and/or historic and documentary series. The ABC was undergoing massive change and the various Film Commissions were in a little turmoil. It was not unusual for many of those folk involved in these type productions to make monetary and time sacrifices for the love of the final production. The same applies for our funded commitment to the news/documentary coverage of the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996. Arguably size for size, Atlanta’s coverage was less than what was made for the Victoria Commonwealth Games. By the mid 1990s it was becoming more so about all about big money and advertising rights and that flows through to media coverage. I worked at both Victoria and Atlanta. And so the journalism, photography, video and film followed the sports where the money was located and where the advertising and endorsement could be a ‘value add’ to the media rights holders and their clients, to whom the rights holders could on-sell or charge big-time for the advertising space.

Back to the topic of the 35 to 350 (or 28 to 300) – typically any situation such as a war/conflict correspondent would also find this type of lens a ‘consideration’: probably more so now, also because the DSLR can now make reasonable video. And another consideration is that the video ex a good DSLR, can make good stills. But the (28 to 300) lens is heavy. But on the other hand it does provide IS (and that can be useful at the wide end, especially for hand held video).

Traditionally, (stills) conflict correspondents would use Prime Lenses; and also most film guys would carry at least one stills camera and a fast prime on it – Neil Davis is one great example of this - a genius film maker but had a stills camera at the ready and knew how to use it.

But since around the mid 2000s there has been an acceleration of the convergence of technologies and also outputs: so there are now fewer specialists. I note my friend (with now three tours in Afghanistan) uses three (canon) DSLRs and three zoom lenses (the 2.8L trio) for his stills and also some video syndication: but over Christmas he borrowed my 24 to 105/4L IS along the thinking that could be his dedicated "video" lens. I don't know what he has decided about that. I do know that he has never considered the 28 to 300L, because he is a three camera carrier, anyway.

The main issue with the using DSLR for video is the audio and often requires a shotgun microphone to get accurate dialogue, but, when working alone, a shotgun mic cannot be mounted on the camera because the extreme directionality requires the mic to be aimed at the audio source when the (video) might require panning . . . but syndication fees don’t now allow for a Sound Recordist and to pay the rent in these occupations often means one person has to supply video, stills and also copy. I don’t and never have done any Conflict assignments: but it is the same for Sports and News generally – that’s pretty obvious to mostly all people involved in any way whatsoever: even if one is a consumer of ‘quality’ news and current affairs Journalism, via any source.

That’s probably more than you asked about: but I was on a roll. Trust I answered your question and gave some value added.

WW