The AF on the 7D was its weakest link. It had real problems with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC, which is the reason I sold it for the 70D, which focuses well. There has been considerable comment here about the weakness of the 7D AF.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yesterday, I tried out the 70D with the 300/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III. It was good at f/4. But, for reach limited subjects, the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III was even better.
Do you mean that the 2xTC on FF is better than a 70D+1.4xTC? And what about a 70D vs 1.4xTC on FF?
Total simpleton here that has tried gamely to follow the logic of this thread. I accept the circa 20% difference but can someone put this in laymans terms for me....I currently have a 5DIII with 300mm and 2x converter. However, with a 7D2 I could achieve slightly greater 'reach' with a 1.4x - in this instance would a 7D2 with 300mm and 1.4x be a better option than a 5dIII with 300mm and 2x converter? I am reach limited more often than not and I guess the other benefits of the 7D setup include higher FPS, lighter weight and faster aperture.
from a little quaint rural village just out side Glasgow....... Ruggie!!!
If Nikon hadn't patented the crop in the camera I'd just switch the 5D to crop mode for wildlife and have the camera I want.
I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
So light weight prime for me would always win.
No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…
Nah, its helpful but really once you get down to the point that IS becomes necessary the movement of the bird will blur the shot. Its extremely difficult no matter what equipment you have to shoot in heavy forest. You really need to use a flash in those cases, both for illumination and to freeze motion.
Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy. Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness.
What site is this? I'd like to see some moderated/judged wildlife shots