Prime lens Or Pro Body

LauraJ23

LauraJ23

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14,759
Name
Laura
Edit My Images
No
Just a bit of thinking out loud here, just returned from our annual holiday on the isles of scilly. Enjoying pelagic trips in lively seas and fast moving birds got me thinking in terms of equipment I used.

I have a 7dmk2 with a sigma 150-600 c.

Got some acceptable results from it as I usually do

So my general wondering, if I was able to

Use my 7d2 and have a 400mm f4 do, faster af and prime lens quality
or put my 150-600 on a 1dx series body, faster fps and a useable zoom range.

What would be your choice?
 
Well, I was thinking about getting a 7D MK2 and the Canon 400mm so that would be my recommendation
 
What makes your current images just acceptable rather than exceptional (in your view)?

What would the upgrade in either lens or body give you that your current equipment can't?
 
Hi,

I changed from a Canon 100-400 MkII to a 400 DO MkII and use on occasion with the TC MkIII. Wouldn’t change back, stunning on my 7D MkII.

So I would change the Lens not the Body you will notice the difference, though I don’t know if it’s the MkI lens you are thinking of and what your budget would be.
 
In which case what about the 100-400 mk2 and an extender or two ?
 
af performance, could be better in tracking, Also there are times when the focus is just not quite there, but other times it is,
I do wish the 7dmk2 was better in the shadows, noise is annoying.
Skipper of the boat uses a 1dx and 400 2.8, colours and sharpness look great from that combo. There's no way I could manage the weight of the 400mm 2.8.
 
Depends, the 7d MK2 can be a bit noisy if compared like for like against my 5D3 at moderate Iso, so as long as you keep the Iso down I would go for a prime lens. You have the choice also of 400 f5.6L, not expensive and pretty light, takes a 1.4 well too, but no IS. I may have read a rumour that an IS version was due, that may have just been wishful thinking.
I recently purchased a 300 f4 and the IQ with that is very good too plus it has IS which really helps me but obviously not particularly long but takes cropping and extender well.
Too many options? :)
Matt
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Depends, the 7d MK2 can be a bit noisy if compared like for like against my 5D3 at moderate Iso, so as long as you keep the Iso down I would go for a prime lens. You have the choice also of 400 f5.6L, not expensive and pretty light, takes a 1.4 well too, but no IS. I may have read a rumour that an IS version was due, that may have just been wishful thinking.
I recently purchased a 300 f4 and the IQ with that is very good too plus it has IS which really helps me but obviously not particularly long but takes cropping and extender well.
Too many options? :)
Matt
Click to expand...
Yes, so many options,and how much better would they be in reality hence the general wondering . is needs to be there for me, a prime 400 5.6 with is would be lovely. As for iso it's generally low but if the lights not that good then up it goes 1250 upwards and noise is very noticeable, even 800 can be noisy in shadows after they have been lifted.
 
Funnily enough I find lenses with IS work better for me too, even at fast shutter speeds when it's not "supposed" to have any effect, that was the reason I swapped out my 400 without IS for a 300 with IS, the results just seem sharper and my 400 was a good example (I tested it on a tripod etc), same with my 70/200 f4. Maybe another case of theory vs real world.
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top