Whitetail Doe Closeup

Gee, Jerry, not many of have a quandary like that. Nevertheless, this is a splendid portrait of this doe. Lots of detail in her head. Love those eyes and nice long eyelashes. BG very nice as well. Only little nit would be for a bit more canvas on the top. But still it's the man or woman behind the camera that composes the image and pushes the shutter that matters most. Could be a good combo for you and your new lens.

Jerry,
Buy the zoom it is so flexible!
In all honesty I think your shutter speed was a bit slow, I am not familiar with the 7D but I would consider upping the ISO, to achieve this.
I have also find that an increase in F stop, has a good result on the sharpness on this lens.

Hi Jerry,

Always fun when you get full eye contact from this close...nice, personal encounter.

To be honest, this one seems on the soft side. But, even if shot off a tripod, that's an awfully slow shutter speed for 560mm (actually, just under 900 mm EFL on a APS-C sensor camera like the 7D)...and I suspect that is the source of the sharpness, not the lens.

As a Nikon guy I can't comment directly on the lens in question. And, what lens is best for you will depend to a large degree on the subject matter you prefer to shoot. But I can this: For a number of years I used Nikon's equivalent lens - the 200-400. One day out of curiosity I analyzed the focal lengths I had been using with it over the previous two year period (a quick thing to do with filtering in Lightroom)). Over 95% of my shots were taken between 380mm and 400mm. I thought..."hmmm...why am I using a zoom lens like a prime - why not just get a good prime?" Then I purchased the 400mm f2.8 VR and fell in absolute love with it...and never looked back (and...over the next 18 months never found a reason to pick up my 200-400). Which leads to this viewpoint: If you're mainly into shooting wildlife, I'd recommend you go for a prime over the 200-400 - and at the price of the 200-400 (way over-priced IMO) I'd opt for the 400mm f2.8 - it works incredibly well with TC's (I have had lots of clients shooting that combo and the results were excellent) and is tack, tack sharp when shot native...

Just my 2 cents worth...

One further comment: You might want to pose this same question in the Wildlife Photography Forum...

Cheers...

Brad

Thanks everyone for the comments. Bill and Ken, thanks for the comments on the equipment.

Bill / Ken,

I really appreciate you guys taking the time to comment on my "dilemma". I agree that the image is a touch soft. I hesitate to push the ISO too much on the 7D because I have found the noise , even at moderate ISO's, objectionable. I believe, as you, the softness was because of the slow shutter speed. I also agree that the 200-400 is overpriced. However, Canon seems to be on a mission to raise their prices substantially on most of their new or redesigned lens. That's unfortunate. My colleague bought a 70-200 f2.8 IS for $1500 a few years ago. The current price of the redesigned lens (Series II) is around $2600.

Bill, I have actually considered what you are suggesting. Getting a 400mm prime might work and it would certainly be less expensive. However, as I know Ken would agree, I find that I could surely use a zoom in some situations. Well, I rented the 200-400 to see if it will suit my needs. I will be using it to do some eagle photography in Wisconsin over the Christmas holiday. Expect more postings of images with this lens.

Very nice portrait. I have been eyeing the Canon 200-400 myself. I will be paying close attention to your reports.

Hey Jerry,

Brad (Bill?) here. Your call on the lens, but just want to say I went EXACTLY through the same train of thought (thinking the zoom would be handy) when I bought my 200-400. But, despite that thought being intuitively logical and sensible, in practice, the zoom ended up being something I rarely used (and the other characteristics of the 400 prime - increased sharpness, larger aperture and associated better bokeh, better low-light performance, better performance with TC's, etc. - turned out to be far more important than the ability to zoom). With a prime one has to learn to work with the fixed focal length and adjust one's "vision" accordingly, but that's a very useful exercise for any photographer to go through.

For a long time many Canon photographers (up to the pro level) seemed to have "lens envy" over Nikon's 200-400 (I even saw a few switch brands because of it) but, somewhat ironically, now that Canon finally has a 200-400 I'm seeing more and more of the Nikon guys getting rid of their 200-400 and replacing them with big primes (often the 400mm f2.8) instead.

Take that FWIW...

Brad

Brad,

Sorry I referred to you as Bill. I have seriously considered buying a prime in lieu of the Canon 200-400. I have followed your comments on the Nikon D4. I could get a Nikon D4 and a Nikon 400mm f2.8 for only $1200 more than the Canon 200-400 alone. I'll see if I come to any conclusions after I use the 200-400 a bit more. I am really conflicted right now.

Jerry