mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Have you noticed any AF speed issues or compatibility issues using your Canon lenses via an adapter on your Sony bodies?

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

What you are saying makes a lot of sense. I think you can get use to the difference. There is a considerable difference in cost between a upper end crop sensor dslr and a Sony mirror-less camera, both in $ and in availability of lenses. I suspect that 5 years from now mirror-less will be the norm.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Yes and no. I tried a couple of adapters early on that boasted "no loss" but there was major loss in autofocus and I didn't look much past that. When I read that the $400+ Metabones didn't offer much better performance I just opted to focus manually and wait it out or pick up a good Sony lens or two. Then I heard about the Sigma MC-11 adapter that proved to be a great improvement. It could be my imagination but it seems to me that the MC-11 allows my a6500 to focus my Canon lenses faster than my Canon bodies do with the same "L" lenses. I can't report on a comparison with the a6500 and Sony G lens because I haven't tied one. You do get to enjoy almost all the handy features like "eye" focus, etc., when shooting stills but it isn't nearly so friendly with video, and does not, for instance, follow-focus. Some lens may but mine do not. I do have some Sony kit lens that work well with video so the disconnect seems to be the Canon lenses. My Canon lenses focus as fast or faster in the same light as my Sony kit lens. The Sony lens I have aren't shabby at all as long as I stay away from the extreme ends of aperture and zoom. I'm won't speculate about all Canon lens beyond what I've used which are the 50mm f/1.8, EF100mm f/2.8L Macro II IS, EF70-200mm f/2.8L, II IS, and the EF400mm f/5.6L.

I've had the older, very sharp, non-IS EF400mm f/5.6L lens since 1993 and it will autofocus quite nicely even with my EF1.4xII TC and zoomed out to 2X using Sony's relatively loss-less Clear Image Zoom (CIZ). With the 1.5x crop factor that pushes me way out around 1680mm, if I figured that right. That gives me f/8, IBIS, and autofocus with a non-IS lens - pretty remarkable. The light has to pretty low for the 400 before I get any "hunting" or "searching" when it tries to focus with the MC-11. I'm a little sleep deprived at the moment so I hope that makes sense. If not, I'll try to make it clearer after a short nap.

gessman Loc: Colorado

...you got a coin?

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

Ok, Thanks for all of the feedback. Hear is the final discussion, Canon t7i camera boby $620, Canon 18-135 refrb.$235, Canon 100-400 Efl II refrb.$1750.Total $2604

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I’ll add a few items not specific to Camera / lens choices: a well-made, easy to use tripod with a gimbal for wildlife and an easy to use head for landscapes. I’m intentionally not recommending a type of head because of an ensuing fire fight. Also not specifying a tripod choice because it’s a lightning rod of divergent opinions. I’ll just say that your choice should exceed your current photographic “needs”.

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

Nothing wrong with controversy. Lets hear your recommendation.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Ok. Really depends on lenses and whether you hike/travel with a tripod. As I do both, I have a preference for light weight and small size. My choice was a Feisol CT-3442 topped with a Siriu 40x Ball Head. Bear in mind, I use no long heavy telephotos. I also value ease of use. I also seldom drive to my spots: I’m either taking public transportation or walking. Many others prefer a pan/tilt head; I don’t: Been there and done that, but maybe it’s just a “style difference”. So that’s my take.....

Bill_de Loc: US

No, but possibly for other reasons.

--

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually, instead of the Sigma 18-250mm... Partly because it overlaps A LOT of the 100-400mm.... But also because I'm just not a big fan of super wide ranging "do it all" zooms like the Sigma. Zooms like that generally have to compromise in a number of ways, in order to have such a wide range of focal lengths (almost 14X, in this case!)

The 100-400mm, on the other hand, is a much more "reasonable" type of zoom... 4X and telephoto-to-telephoto (instead of wide-to-normal-to-telephoto). Either of the Canon 100-400mm versions is very good. The "II" is the best of the two.

Along with that, I would recommend either:

1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM... wider would be good for landscapes... there's a significant difference between 18mm and 15mm. Still a two lens kit. The minor gap between 85mm and 100mm is pretty inconsequential.

OR

2. Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS USM (cheaper)... or EF-S 18-135mm IS STM (mid-priced) or EF-S 18-135mm IS USM (faster focusing, higher priced) AND either a Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM (very compact and affordable for an ultrawide) or EF-S 10-22mm USM (more expensive). This three lens kit that gives you even wider angle of view. The 18-55mm or 18-135mm should be available "in kit" with the camera, for some savings.

The gap between 55mm and 100mm isn't a very big a deal either... But if you wish, maybe someday you may want to add an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, which is reasonably compact and one of the more affordable macro lenses. There's also the Tamron SP 60mm f/2, which is a bit slower focusing, but fine for macro AND... thanks to it's larger aperture... for portraiture. An alternative is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (two versions, the more expensive one has stabilization and faster focus drive).

More "premium" alternatives to the above kit lenses: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... OR EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, which is able to do a lot of macro work on it's own. It's .70X magnification is 3X or 2.5X more than most zooms are capable of doing.

T7i should be fine. 77D or 80D would be even better... Both of them give more direct access to some controls than T7i... 80D also uses a larger battery that gives about 2X the shots per charge that the other two do. 80D also has a larger, brighter viewfinder (uses a true pentaprism, while the other two use a penta-mirror to save weight and cost). But the camera doesn't matter as much as the lenses you use on it. All three of these models have very similar image quality potential because they share essentially the same 24MP sensor.

The 100-400mm II is moderately large and weighs about 3.5 lb. It's eminently hand-holdable for a while... But if doing a longer shooting session, such as sitting in a blind waiting for wildlife, you may want a good tripod. Don't go too cheap with that, because a quality tripod can last a lifetime, while cheap ones never do the job very well and usually end up having to be replaced every year or two. If you get a tripod, for wildlife photography you may want to use some sort of gimbal mount. There are several types, but one of the less expensive and most convenient is a gimbal adapter that works in conjunction with a quality ballhead on the tripod (other types completely replace any other head, making the tripod "long lens only" for all practical purposes). But, if you do that you'll need an Arca-Swiss style quick release on the lens.... and that's a little tricky with the 100-400 II. The tripod foot Canon provides is stylish, but difficult to effectively fit with an Arca-style lens plate. However, there are replacement feet custom made to fit the 100-400 II that work very well: Kirk Photo, Hejnar Photo and Really Right Stuff all make versions. The less expensive of these aren't much more expensive than a quality lens plate, and work much better on this particular lens.

Have fun shopping! We're always happy to help you spend your money!

wesm Loc: Los Altos CA

I shoot a lot of landscapes, and a bit of wildlife (bighorn sheep, tule elk, and the mockingbirds and hummingbirds that are around in the spring)
For me, the 100-400mm doesn't have the reach, but as I said, I'm pretty inexperienced with wildlife.

I'm a lot more comfortable with landscape recommendations. I think the camera body is fine for now, you can upgrade as your interests and skills progress. But it's NOT a mistake to buy good glass, they will hold their resale value well, camera bodies not so much. Also, for landscapes, buy a GOOD tripod, the best you can afford, and some odds and ends like a remote shutter release. The manual, no-battery release by Canon is just fine for any exposures up to 30 seconds.

I use these lenses for landscapes: Sigma 50mm 1.4L (you might consider the 35mm for your crop sensor). Yes really, I like to use it in portrait mode and take panoramas. Good tripod a must for this. My go-to lens is a 16-35mm f2.8L II zoom otherwise. I also will use a 24-70 or a 70-200 for some landscape shots.

I use a Tamron 150-600mm zoom for wildlife. It's a monster, but if I can keep the shutter speed over 1600, I do OK.

For tripods, I use Gitzo mountaineer series, I have RRS and Gitzo ball heads, and a Nest gimbal head. The Gitzos have worked well for me everywhere from the Badwater Flats of Death Valley to glaciers in Iceland.

I have a website gallery under construction, if you would like you can PM me and I'll send you the link.

Fotoserj Loc: St calixte Qc Ca

Possible option, renting, it will give you a test run to see what’s you like best

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

I to have considered renting. Do you have any suggestions on who to rent from? I will look into your suggestions on tripods. Currently I am using a mono-pod, easier to carry when traveling.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The problem with one lens solutions is that they force too many compromises on the designers.