I'll be the first to admit that I jumped in head first without thinking when I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII. People said you'll miss the reach of the 70-300 and I justified to myself that there was little difference between 200 & 300mm.
I'm starting to notice now that there's no real fault with the 7D. It was designed perfectly. It wasn't however, designed to have the wrong focal length used for a particular subject. For ages now I've been using it at 200mm, and cropping my shots. Yes there's a massive risk and some shots are bang on focus and you can get away with it. However, much of the problems I've been having with tracking moving subjects lately are because the subject is just too far away for the camera to see it let alone track it.
That's when it hit me. I need something longer.
Options
1. Sell the 70-200 and get a Sigma 150-500, and a Sigma 17-50 2.8 (always wanted one)
2. Sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 400mm f.5.6
3. Do it all on the cheap with an old FD prime with converters.
4. Buy a 2x MKIII teleconverter, on the credit card.
There is no budget for new lenses, I pretty much blew that out the water with the 70-200 purchase. I am now feeling the restrictions of my decision, and often have great success with it, but would probably get better success with being closer optically.
I must add that I have bought a hide recently. A nice comfy chair hide, however, that's more geared towards me knowing an area and watching a particular bird or the like. I'm talking about a walk about situation where I see something and can reach it without trying to act like a ninja and resorting to crawling about on all fours like I was yesterday following a Buzzard lol
This shot was the result of 35 mins walking and crawling very slowly about wet long grass and only moving when it was turned away. It's also a 50% crop. Tracked from the moment it left the tree as it flew along the tree line in the field. Out of 15 shots, only two were in focus. I didn't use continuous burst, instead opting for some controlled bursts of 3 or so.
This was one of 15 shots that was in focus. Shocking numbers. by Campsie Photography, on Flickr
The IQ of the 70-200 is so amazing that there's no doubt I'd miss it, but for wildlife in focus limiting situations your subject really needs to be isolated before you can get a good shot. The 7D also really doesn't focus well on things smaller in the frame if they are far away. It's AF system is built for things bigger in the frame I think. Probably like most cameras to be honest. However, I'm assessing my options.
Summary
My current style of shooting wildlife is really walking around green belt areas where hills and trees are everywhere. All manor of birds and ground dwelling animals live there and I'm looking for options on getting as closer optically. I also plan to sit in the hide at times in this area for as long as my good lady will allow lol.
I'm starting to notice now that there's no real fault with the 7D. It was designed perfectly. It wasn't however, designed to have the wrong focal length used for a particular subject. For ages now I've been using it at 200mm, and cropping my shots. Yes there's a massive risk and some shots are bang on focus and you can get away with it. However, much of the problems I've been having with tracking moving subjects lately are because the subject is just too far away for the camera to see it let alone track it.
That's when it hit me. I need something longer.
Options
1. Sell the 70-200 and get a Sigma 150-500, and a Sigma 17-50 2.8 (always wanted one)
2. Sell the 70-200 and get a Canon 400mm f.5.6
3. Do it all on the cheap with an old FD prime with converters.
4. Buy a 2x MKIII teleconverter, on the credit card.
There is no budget for new lenses, I pretty much blew that out the water with the 70-200 purchase. I am now feeling the restrictions of my decision, and often have great success with it, but would probably get better success with being closer optically.
I must add that I have bought a hide recently. A nice comfy chair hide, however, that's more geared towards me knowing an area and watching a particular bird or the like. I'm talking about a walk about situation where I see something and can reach it without trying to act like a ninja and resorting to crawling about on all fours like I was yesterday following a Buzzard lol
This shot was the result of 35 mins walking and crawling very slowly about wet long grass and only moving when it was turned away. It's also a 50% crop. Tracked from the moment it left the tree as it flew along the tree line in the field. Out of 15 shots, only two were in focus. I didn't use continuous burst, instead opting for some controlled bursts of 3 or so.
This was one of 15 shots that was in focus. Shocking numbers. by Campsie Photography, on Flickr
The IQ of the 70-200 is so amazing that there's no doubt I'd miss it, but for wildlife in focus limiting situations your subject really needs to be isolated before you can get a good shot. The 7D also really doesn't focus well on things smaller in the frame if they are far away. It's AF system is built for things bigger in the frame I think. Probably like most cameras to be honest. However, I'm assessing my options.
Summary
My current style of shooting wildlife is really walking around green belt areas where hills and trees are everywhere. All manor of birds and ground dwelling animals live there and I'm looking for options on getting as closer optically. I also plan to sit in the hide at times in this area for as long as my good lady will allow lol.
Comment