Lenses for 7d

[Derek B]

Hey guys... Just wanting some advice on lenses that I shout look at for my camera....

I am looking at the 70-200 lf4 and a 24-105 f4

I am also wondering whether I should go for a 100-400 lens or just go for a extender instead...

Cheers in advance fellas

[Beau Chenery]

Assuming you are going to use a 1.4x converter

70-200 f4 with an extender is not a good idea. Minimum aperture becomes f6.4

70-200 f2.8 with an extender is fine. Minimum aperture becomes 4.6

70-200 f2.8 even without IS would be better in my opinion if you are going to use with converter. No converter go f4 with IS.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and hands down it is the sharpest lens by a mile. Leaves the dust pump 100-400 for dead. I personally think the 100-400 is a rubbish lens after having used the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

Hope that helps.

[Ian Gains]

Hi Derek,

I bought a 7D 6 months ago & got the 17-40mm L and 70-300mm L, & I've been happy with both. I've been in the photographic game for 25+ years so I researched the available Canon lenses well - IMHO don't bother with any other manufacturer's lenses as they aren't as good. I suggest that you read some reviews on line of the lenses that interest you & you will find that Beau's recommendation for the 70-200mm L IS II is fantastic, but it is a $2000 lens. For what I do, the 70-300mm is more compact, good optically, & translates to a 112-480mm lens on the 7D. Don't worry about the technical jargon in the reviews, just get a feel for how good a lens is & will it do the job you want it to. Do you need IS ? I decided I did for the telephoto zoom lens, but that I could live without it for the 'static park at airshows' lens, hence the 17-40mm which doesn't have IS. You pay more for larger maximum apertures too ie. an f/2.8 lens compared to a f/4 lens, but the f/2.8 is heavier, takes larger more expensive filters & can weigh twice as much, plus it will be double the price. When you can increase the effective film speed so easily with DSLR's, & I lug my gear overseas, I was happy to get a lighter, cheaper lens that is still good optically (it's better on a 7D than 5D as the 7D uses the 'sweet spot' of the optical field.

Ask some questions when you have read some reviews. The 24-105mm L IS seems like good value for money, but it's performance is comprised at 24mm, both on a full frame sensor body AND to a lesser degree on the smaller sensor series, including the 7D. If you can live with this, it seems pretty good throughout the other focal lengths. Google lens reviews - Photozone is pretty good, & there are several others that should be easily found.

[Beau Chenery]

There is a rumour of a new 7D being released in the next few months - wait out for this. It should provide huge improvements on ISO performance and larger sensor.

[JohnM]

I traded in my 70-200 L F4 for the 70-200 IS L F2.8. My bad mistake. I also have the 100-400 L. Quality is perfect. Just keep to the rule. Focal length is to be minumium shutter speed. Unless you are going to do protraits I have found I never use F2.8. Too shallow a DOF. F4 DOF is same on any lens. F4 will show most of aircrat in a good DOF but F8 is better as all aircraft is crisp. As nothing between lens and aircraft F stop can be shallow.
I also have the X2 and x1.4 extenders. The x2 is just too just too slow for quick focus (too strong a magnifcation). Never use now.
For Brisbane loop, then you will find the 70-200mm F4 suitable for requirements but with the 100-400 you will love the zoom in shots.

[nfarmer]

Better late than never. The are several lenses suitable for aircraft photography with the 7D. I would suggest a zoom and there are 3 types to consider, Canon's 70-200L, 70-300L and 100-400L. If you are on a budget then the 70-200 f4L with a Kenko x1.4 extender is about the lowest cost good quality gears. The Kenko extender does not report the focal length to the camera so AF still works. If choosing between the 70-300L and 100-400L the crucial difference is all about the suitability of the focal length. The 100-400L is a lot better than the 70-300L at 400mm, even when an extender is fitted.
With no extender the 70-300L is sharper and better at Focus and IS than the 100-400L, but, the difference is not so great that I would get a 70-300L based on this alone. A 100-400L image will be better than a 70-300L image cropped to the same size, but the differences will not be much.
There are the lower cost 70-300 Sigmas, Canons and Tamross. Of these the Sigma APO is the best but all are a good step behind the quality L glass I have mentioned above.
Some say the 100-400L pumps dust into itself. This is a not true, in normal use, even in dusty conditions on African safaris, the most popular lens for these, the lens keeps dust free with basic precautions.
So, in summary, buy based on the focal length you need.

[Ian Gains]

There are good reviews on all of these lenses at a number of on-line sites such as Photozone, & the lenses have been tested on full frame & APS-C bodies, so you can see how they go in case of a future body upgrade.

From what I have read, unless you require the last 100mm that the 100-400mm lens gives you, the 70-300mm lens is likely to be a better choice - it is smaller & lighter in weight; the MTF resolution is higher in the centre of the optical field at both 200mm & 300mm (both 'peak' at f/8); the IS is a later design, so it gives a more effective range (3.5-4.0 stops compared to 2.0); the twist zoom design rather than the push/pull design gives the lens better dust & moisture resistance. Both are similar in cost, & will outperform any lens from Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, & the Nikon 80-400mm. I got mine from DWI & would recommend them. As Beau has said, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is better again but, personally, if considering this & then using an extender, I would front up the $'s for a Canon extender that will have been designed to work optimally with these lenses. When it comes to quality glass, you really do get what you pay for.

[Tom M-S]

Hi Derek,
I have a 550D. The 550 and the 7 have the same sensor so this should relate to you.
I use a Sigma 120-400 and its a amazing lens. I also have a Canon 24-105 and its a waste of money for aviation related photography (Amazing lens otherwise).
Yes its heavy! But its amazing optical stabilization makes up for it. I can hand hold it on top of a 2 meter ladder and the shots are sharp and clear.
At f8 its a very, very sharp lens. I shoot f8 95% of the time, so that means you can go up to 1/1250 on white aircraft (Why white? Because white aircraft facing the sun act as a massive light reflector).

If you would like to see some shots of some planes feel free to check out my flickr or my website. Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/65524418@N02/ Website: http://www.adelaidespotting.com/

Happy Spotting - Have a nice day

- Tom