300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!

[rmfagan]

Hello all-

I'm at a bit of a purchasing impasse and I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to make a big purchase or two between now and mid-January, with a mind to use it/them on trips I have scheduled throughout the year.

I'm photographing snowy owls in Canada in January, Iceland in February, eagles in Utah followed by mammals in Teton in March, an abandoned prison in April, Glacier NP/Yellowstone NP in June, storms in AZ in July, whales/puffins in Maine in August, and 9/11 in NYC by helicopter in September.

My current gear is Canon 5D3, 17TS-E, 16-35L 2.8, 24-70L II, 70-200L IS II, and a 50 1.8 II. I have both the 1.4 TC III and 2.0 TC III, and 3x600EX-RT, as well as the SR-E3-RT. I'm in the process of selling the 16-35 for the new 16-35L IS (I don't find myself needing 2.8).

I enjoy nature/wildlife photography, landscape, portraiture, and travel.

So with that said, I'm looking at the 300 IS II or 500 IS (ver 1) refurb or lightly used respectively, and a 7D II. I could also consider the 500 IS II if I forgo a 2nd body. I'm torn. The 300 II option would see use for more stuff, no doubt, but I feel I'd need the 7D II for reach (?). For the cost of both I could get the 500 IS II.

With either 500, it's a purely wildlife lens. With the 300 I can see portrait, some sports, even tele landscape stuff too. Of course, I'm also looking at the 85L, 135L, and 100L macro, so portrait use isn't critical.

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Side question: I was looking at MTF charts. Is 16-35L IS looking sharper than 24TSE? I'm no good at those charts.

 

[Marsu42]

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Don't buy anything, shoot with what you have - it doesn't look to shabby . If you'd be in real need of one of the gear items, you'd know.

If it's just gas, probably get the 500L2 as you're focal length limited with your current full frame gear. With the kind of image quality you're carrying, I imagine you wouldn't be happy going back to a crop sensor.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd go for the glass and wait to see what happens in the way of new body announcements next year.

I also don't think you would like the IQ of a crop. So far, the 7D MK II photos I've seen are good, but the fine detail seems smeared a bit, particularly when compared to a FF image.

Once more images emerge, and users gain experience, my opinion might change. It can be difficult to view images online too, since they often get messed up by the upload and size reduction process.

 

[rpt]

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Don't buy anything, shoot with what you have - it doesn't look to shabby . If you'd be in real need of one of the gear items, you'd know.

If it's just gas, probably get the 500L2 as you're focal length limited with your current full frame gear. With the kind of image quality you're carrying, I imagine you wouldn't be happy going back to a crop sensor.

+1

 

[rmfagan]

I am indeed concerned about the IQ as compared to what I am used to from the 5D3, but I am also quite wary of bringing only one camera on these trips. Most of them are in fairly harsh elements where a failure of a body spells the end of my trip and renders a 500 II quite useless.

I have of course entertained the idea of renting a 2nd, but 6 rentals would have me at the same cost as buying something essentially.

Would it be more useful to just grab a 2nd 5D3? In that case, I'd be in either 300 II or 500 I territory, in which case I'm uncertain which is a better move. I've heard great thingsaot the 300 with TCs...enough to offset the reach off 500 native?

 

[Marsu42]

Would it be more useful to just grab a 2nd 5D3?

If it's purely for "just in case" backup you could also grab a cheap (by your lenses standard ) 6d - same or better iq, but terrible af and not made for use in rain as it's way less sealed. But unlike the 5d3, you can easily exchange the vf screen on the 6d for manual focus with fast lenses or your ts.

If you want to dual-use two lenses w/o switching outdoors a lot (= dirty sensor), a 2nd 5d3 body might be a good idea anyway.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Having used the 3 lenses that you quote and owning the 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 I would suggest the following:

The 300 F2.8 Mk 1 IS or Mk 2 lenses are simply superb - the Mk2 being a touch better, but I think you will probably end up using extenders most of the time which will compromise IQ a little and make you more dependent on contrasty light.

500 Mk1 or Mk2? The Mk1 is a lovely lens but the Mk2 is significantly lighter (about the same as a 300 F2.8 + 2 extenders) and is so sharp that you may hurt yourself! Also the 500 Mk2 works significantly better with the 2 x Mk3 extender than the Mk1 does with either the 2 x Mk2 or Mk3 extenders. Though the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a bit short for my uses I would love to have one due to the extra mobility it offers. It can be carried for a fair distance without the encumbrance of tripods, backpacks, heads, mono pods etc..etc + it is quite easy to hand hold. If you want reach and mobility this lens is the best compromise out there, regardless of brand.

7D2 - difficult! There is a lot of tooing and frowing on the interweb about this camera. I know 2 professional wildlife/sports photographers who have been testing this camera for Canon. 1 is a Beta model and the other a production model and they both state that it is the best APSC camera that they have, yet, tried. However it has it's limitations. This is what they tell me. Firstly it is not great on batteries - no big deal they don't die on the spot - just carry a spare to be sure you won't be caught out on a long day's shooting. AF is very good, acquisition and tracking are excellent - probably on a par with your 5D3 or maybe a touch better. IQ, whist great for apsc, they prefer the Canon FF cameras so you are probably better off where you are with the 5D3. The big difference is ISO your 5D3 is significantly better here - important with longer lenses.

Reach - these are my personal observations. Most of my photography is very reach limited which is why I went for the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I can usually get fairly close to most of my subjects I like frame filling detailed images. To date I have been disappointed with APSC cameras, though I haven't had a really good go at the 7D2. Whilst the subject appears much larger in the viewfinder I am getting better images with my FF camera (1DX). Yes I do loose some reach, but it is nothing like the 1.6 crop factor would suggest. The 1DX certainly equals, or exceeds the 1D4 (owned both) so there is not much in it when compared to 1.6.

Just my thoughts/experiences. I hope there is something useful to you in there.

 

[Ryan85]

I think I'd go with 300 v2 if I were you. It'll be smaller and lighter when you're traveling and be more flexible like you said if you want to shoot sports too. I think the 7d2 would be a great addition to your kit. If your use to the 5d3 the 7d2 will be a seamless transition. There configuration is very similar. With those cameras your extenders the new lens and your existing lenses you'll have a awesome set up that's very flexible for what you're wanting to shoot. I'm not sure about the chart comparison you're wanting to know about but the 16-35 f4 is tack sharp. As is the 100L you said you're looking at. I'd strongly recommend both those lenses.

 

[takesome1]

500mm II no contest.

Unless you want the high frame rate for BIF there would be no real reason to own the 7D II.
The superior IS of the 500mm II and lighter weight will help overcome camera shake. Any perceived increase in "reach" in many situations is lost for just that reason. Shutter speed is another and the superior noise performance of the 5D III helps overcome that by allowing higher ISO and faster shutter.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Hello all-

I'm at a bit of a purchasing impasse and I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to make a big purchase or two between now and mid-January, with a mind to use it/them on trips I have scheduled throughout the year.

I'm photographing snowy owls in Canada in January, Iceland in February, eagles in Utah followed by mammals in Teton in March, an abandoned prison in April, Glacier NP/Yellowstone NP in June, storms in AZ in July, whales/puffins in Maine in August, and 9/11 in NYC by helicopter in September.

My current gear is Canon 5D3, 17TS-E, 16-35L 2.8, 24-70L II, 70-200L IS II, and a 50 1.8 II. I have both the 1.4 TC III and 2.0 TC III, and 3x600EX-RT, as well as the SR-E3-RT. I'm in the process of selling the 16-35 for the new 16-35L IS (I don't find myself needing 2.8).

I enjoy nature/wildlife photography, landscape, portraiture, and travel.

So with that said, I'm looking at the 300 IS II or 500 IS (ver 1) refurb or lightly used respectively, and a 7D II. I could also consider the 500 IS II if I forgo a 2nd body. I'm torn. The 300 II option would see use for more stuff, no doubt, but I feel I'd need the 7D II for reach (?). For the cost of both I could get the 500 IS II.

With either 500, it's a purely wildlife lens. With the 300 I can see portrait, some sports, even tele landscape stuff too. Of course, I'm also looking at the 85L, 135L, and 100L macro, so portrait use isn't critical.

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Side question: I was looking at MTF charts. Is 16-35L IS looking sharper than 24TSE? I'm no good at those charts.

So you have a good setup. Something to consider is that while the 500 II is really sharp and never disappoints, it is big and it's heavy...particularly with a tripod attached to a gimbal mount. It's entirely possible to handhold BUT how much of that can you take? If a tripod or monopod is no issue for you then go for the 500.

If you can live with a slight loss of IQ, you can go with the 300 II and the extenders and be able to handhold every shot (420mm and 600mm). There are some tradeoffs but many think it's worth it instead of overdosing on Ibuprofen later that night. I frequently use that setup when hiking and just attach the lens straps directly to my backpack straps. I can go all day like that. The 300mm II is a fine lens in it's own right for larger wildlife like buffalo, horses, zoo animals, etc.

If you dont care about weight you can pick up a used 600 MK1 for about as much as the 300II but be prepared to hire someone to carry it around for you.

 

[DanoPhoto]

500mm II no contest.

+1

 

[tayassu]

I'd get the 300/2.8 II, the 1.4x Extender and the 7DII.
With a 300/2.8, both extenders and as well a FF and a crop body, you have every FL covered:
300 (bare lens on FF), 420 (FF + 1.4), 480 (APS-C bare), 600 (FF + 2x), 672 (APS-C + 1.4x) and 960 (APS-C + 2x).
That is an enormously flexible, relatively lightweight and handholdable setup, it does cost you 2k less the the 500/4 II, you get the best lens Canon ever made and the flexibility of a second body (backup, practicability).
This would be my choice for wildlife photography.