Got the 7D, now what?

100-400, please get that one

The 70-200 is also a great lens, but its really not that long. Specially for birding, sports etc. I use mine mainly for portraits and street candid photography in natural light( I have the 2.8 version). And with the 1.4x, image degrades quite a bit at the 200mm end. The 300mm f4 prime is also good, but I just love the versatility of the 100-400, and its got two levels of IS. Its fast focusing and sharp wide open. Take a look at this one, shot with 5D, wide open at f5.6, keep in mind the lion is far away with a huge fence right in front of the lens. The lens wide open made the fence disappear.

I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm. I had the sony 70-400mm and that was a great lens, but at full zoom tracking planes, it was like waving a rocket launcher around and I kept expecting to be pounced on by several hefty policemen :)
Nice kitty, Angel.

Well, the 100-400 is not an internal zoom type like the 70-200. It is the type that you have to push/pull to extend the zoom and it extends maybe another 3/4 length of the lens, and its white. So it is long but I would not call it a rocket launcher. And congrats on the 7D, I love mine as well. It is just the king of the crops, or the king of the DX(for nikonians). That particular combo will work absolutely wonderful for your type of shots, 7D+100-400L.

Bill, just scroll down in this forum to Alexander Sukonkins "My Canon EF 400mm f/5,6L review"

I dont think you will have any doughts after reading that and looking to his photographs of birds.

Thanks, Bengt,
There are some great images there and the lens IQ is amazing, but I discounted this lens, for now, as it's a one trick pony.
I'm going to have a limited amount of glass for a while until the bank account gets out of rehab and I need to cover as many bases as possible in the short term. I know the 300mm prime is also a bit limited in application, but with the slightly shorter focal length and one stop advantage, it is usable at indoor events.
Still leaning towards the 100-400mm but recognise the value of the 70-200mm speed.
I was always crap at decision making (sigh)

For what information you give, I would get the 100-400mm. I have it and the 70-200 and the 100-400 just does do for birds, longer would be better but the zoom is very versatile.
Or longer, for wildlife, birds.
Then the 70-200. The F4 might do you if you get the one withe IS unless your shooting calls for
the 2.8.

Bill, they are such totally different lenses there should be no doubt which you need, if there is, you don't need either! The 70-200 is many pro's bread and butter lens, it does many things very very well, it is not a birding enabled telephoto lens though. If you need one of those that has a decent amount of flexibility then the 100-400 is your lens (unless you get close to Florida sized birds and then the 300 might just be workable). There are strong rumours of a new version soon though, but even if that materialises I am sure it will be very upgraded along with the price (probably fixed f4), similar to the now two versions of the 100mm macro.

Have fun with your new gear, Scott.

Scott,
"they are such totally different lenses there should be no doubt which you need, if there is, you don't need either"
Truth is, I need both, I'm trying to figure which I need first, as I can only afford one at a time. For my own fun, it's the 100-400mm, for work related (I get the odd magazine commission), the 70-200mm. Emotionally, I'll go for the 100-400mm. BUT, given this awful winter climate with white/grey cloud and rain, birding ops are not plentiful in winter, so a practical decision would be to go for the 70-200mm and pick up the 100-400mm in the Spring, when finances have recovered.

Did I mention before that I can't make decisions?