topic Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8? in General Discussion

Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Stzvero — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:07:05 GMT

So I have a Canon 70D with a 70-200 F4, I shoot mainly motorsports stuff. I have $3000 to spend and I cant decide on if I should upgrade to either a Canon 7D Mk II (with some accessories) or a 70-200 F2.8. Keep in mind I shoot motorsports mainly.

Thanks for the help!!!!!

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Waddizzle — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:07:43 GMT

The 7D Mark II is a fantastic camera body, and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM is a fantastic lens. Put them together and you get AWSOME. I was shooting with that combo last evening.

You would love the 7D2, and having a second body, instead of changing lenses is a big advantage. Likewise, you would love the lens. The images it captures seem to have a 3D quality to them, IMHO.

Another awesome lens to consider is the EF 100-400 f/4.55,6L IS II USM. It is just as fast [at focusing] and sophisticated as the 70-200, and it would extend your reach.

You've asked a tough question. One which only you can answer.. The fast lens would be a good add, but it does duplicate the focal range of a lens you already own. I'll leave that question for you to decide.

The 7D2 would definitely be a good add, though.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:06:08 GMT

"...I should upgrade to either a Canon 7D Mk II ... or a 70-200 F2.8."

Normally and most of the time I recommend upgrading the lens as the most beneficial thing. However, in your case I think I would go for the 7D Mk II and later get the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II. Sell your current 70-200mm f4L top help pay for it.

I don't hold the same regard for the 100-400mil II especially if you buy the 70-200mm f2.8L II, later on. A better option is the ef 400mm f5.6L prime. And, it is cheaper! Why duplicate similar focal lengths from 100 to 200mm with a lesser lens? Plus the 400 prime is extremely sharp and a joy to hand hold.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

TTMartin — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:40:17 GMT

@Stzvero wrote:
So I have a Canon 70D with a 70-200 F4, I shoot mainly motorsports stuff. I have $3000 to spend and I cant decide on if I should upgrade to either a Canon 7D Mk II (with some accessories) or a 70-200 F2.8. Keep in mind I shoot motorsports mainly.

Thanks for the help!!!!!

If you are asking that question here, you probably shouldn't upgrade at all.

When you need to upgrade it should be clear to you where your current gear is letting you down, and how the new gear will correct that.

Typically with motorsports I find that even when using an f/2.8 lens I'm running f/4 - f/8 at ISO 100 anyway, so how is an f/2.8 lens going to benefit you? What is the focal length most of your photos are taken at? Are they all at 100mm or longer? Mine typically are. Then you might benefit from the EF 100-400 L IS II mentioned. By the way it is an outstanding lens with superb image quality.

Where is your 70D letting you down? It certainly has more than adequate tracking for motorsports, as even the 6D does. Will the increased frame rate of the 7D Mk II result in signicantly more keepers? I doubt it, certainly no more that spending more time practicing with your current gear.

1/200, f/8, ISO 250, 118mm

edit: BTW, a 400 prime is way to long for motorsports.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Stzvero — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:14:05 GMT

I never thought of it like that. An interesting thought now that I think about it, my gear I really isn't letting me down, Might have to reconsider and get the 100-400, and just use that extra length.

Thank you for the input!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:18:52 GMT

"I never thought of it like that."

Sometimes you upgrade, 'just because'. You don't need a reason. You don't need to justify everything you do. Do it because you wnat to. Everything is better with a new or newer camera. Life's good.

But before you buy the 100-400mm take a look at the 400mm f5.6L prime. It is a lens everybody 'needs'!

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

diverhank — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:59:16 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I don't hold the same regard for the 100-400mil II especially if you buy the 70-200mm f2.8L II, later on. A better option is the ef 400mm f5.6L prime. And, it is cheaper! Why duplicate similar focal lengths from 100 to 200mm with a lesser lens? Plus the 400 prime is extremely sharp and a joy to hand hold.

@we're entitled to our opinion and I respect yours. In my personal experience, having owned both the 400mm f/5.6L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II, I think the 100-400 is a much better lens especially in versatility and MFD. @400mm, it's just as sharp as the 400mm f/5.6L. This was why I had sold off my 400mm f/5.6L.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

TTMartin — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:23:09 GMT

@diverhank wrote:

@In my personal experience, having owned both the 400mm f/5.6L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II, I think the 100-400 is a much better lens especially in versatility and MFD. @400mm, it's just as sharp as the 400mm f/5.6L. This was why I had sold off my 400mm f/5.6L.

Yes, the EF 400 f/5.6L had it's day, but, compared to the EF 100-400 L IS II it is getting pretty long in the tooth.

If you know how to read MTF's it is pretty clear..

EF 400mm f/5.6L

The EF 100-400 L IS II is an amazing lens that has better image quality at the long end than than the old 400mm L prime.

Not to mention Image Stabilization and the versatility of a zoom.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Stzvero — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:35:36 GMT

I know canon glass is great but do you how is the quality of the 100-400 compared to the 70-200 F2.8, do you know?

I cant really afford to have a prime lens at the moment , I need something with a little more versitility.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

TTMartin — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:45:57 GMT

@Stzvero wrote:
I know canon glass is great but do you how is the quality of the 100-400 compared to the 70-200 F2.8, do you know?

I cant really afford to have a prime lens at the moment , I need something with a little more versitility.

Again the MTFs tell the story, both are outstanding lenses.

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Waddizzle — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:42:18 GMT

@Stzvero wrote:
I never thought of it like that. An interesting thought now that I think about it, my gear I really isn't letting me down, Might have to reconsider and get the 100-400, and just use that extra length.

Thank you for the input!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For what you say you're doing, i think the 100-400 could be a good add. I don't think it quite has the IQ of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, which is in a class by itself. I own both, and don't mind the overlap in their zoom ranges. It doesn't leave me stuck between golf clubs.

I typically shoot in tourist mode with a wide angle zoom. But, when I'm shooting an outdoor even, then I go with the 70-200 on a full frame body, and the 100-400 on a crop body. And, carry the wide angle zoom and a 50mm prime in my bag.

Another camera body you might want to consider is the 80D. I've also discovered that the 80D seems to capture cleaner looking still images than the 7D2, although the 7D2 has more AF SERVO tracking options, and a better body build, than the 80D. The 80D has Wi-Fi, while the 7D2 has GPS. Both cameras are more robust than I am. You won't see me out there in bad weather conditions shooting photographs.

My 6D has both, and much to my surprise, I rarely use either feature. But, I have used the Wi-Fi for remote control and a larger screen for manual focusing much more than the GPS. The internal GPS tends to run the batteries down quickly. It MUST be turned off and disabled when the camera is not in use, because it keeps right on running even when the camera is switched OFF.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:43:43 GMT

"Again the MTFs tell the story, both are outstanding lenses."

Well do they? Not really. There are nice and pretty to look at. Real world use is a whole different story than test labs. I certainly agree they are both outstanding lenses. It does depend on what you want and how you use it. Most zoom lens users find they are at the long end way more of the time then at the short end. If that is you why pay extra for a super zoom. Higher cost and weight for little return.

I decided to sell my 100-400 but that is mostly because I boguth the big Siggy 150-600mm S. I just never used it any longer. But even though, I kept and use the ef 400mm f5.6L. It is just a dream to use.

IMHO, I would prefer the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II with a 1.4x ectender and the ef 400mm f5.6L But that's me, you need to do as you see fit.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Waddizzle — Sat, 15 Apr 2017 15:27:51 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"Again the MTFs tell the story, both are outstanding lenses."

Well do they? Not really. There are nice and pretty to look at. Real world use is a whole different story than test labs. I certainly agree they are both outstanding lenses. It does depend on what you want and how you use it. Most zoom lens users find they are at the long end way more of the time then at the short end. If that is you why pay extra for a super zoom. Higher cost and weight for little return.

I decided to sell my 100-400 but that is mostly because I boguth the big Siggy 150-600mm S. I just never used it any longer. But even though, I kept and use the ef 400mm f5.6L. It is just a dream to use.

IMHO, I would prefer the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II with a 1.4x ectender and the ef 400mm f5.6L But that's me, you need to do as you see fit.

I have the Sigma 150-600 "C", and it is a very good lens, if you shoot at f/8, and don't get too far over 500mm. My biggest complaint about it, though, is that I haven't figured out how to carry it around very well.

I don't mean handheld shooting, just carrying it around with a second body, or even in a camera bag. I find I have to use the custom bag that comes with it, which is something else heavy and bulky to carry. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is nearly identical in size to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, which means it can more easily fit into a wider variety of camera bags, compared to the Sigma 150-600,

Using the Sigma means only carrying the Sigma, and it usually means carrying it around naked, which something I generally don't like to do when I am hiking around in the woods. I don't need to have my camera at the ready as I go on a 1-2 mile hike on a walking trail, which are rarely smooth and level.

I mostly use the Sigma in parks, beaches, and other open flat spaces, where i don't travel more than a few hundred yards from the car.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:00:43 GMT

If you are going to compare the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM to the Sigma 150-600mm, there is no comparison. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM doesn't have 500mm and 600mm ! That seals that deal for me. Oh, wait, maybe I should check the MTF charts ! Geez, how could I ignore that?

OK, I know we are all differnt but I carry two 1 series cameras when I do that kinda funsy stuff. One has the 70-200mm f2.8 on it and the other one has the big Siggy 150-600mm S. The camera with the 70-200mil on it is carried with a Black Rapid. The big Sigma has two neck straps. One on the 1d4 and the other on the lens. Works well.

I might mention our ~~Zoon~~ Zoo has banned long teles and super zooms. No explanation as to why, but that's a bummer for me.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

TTMartin — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 01:45:20 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
If you are going to compare the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM to the Sigma 150-600mm, there is no comparison. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM doesn't have 500mm and 600mm ! That seals that deal for me. Oh, wait, maybe I should check the MTF charts ! Geez, how could I ignore that?

Yes, maybe you should have checked the MTFs. If you had and you knew how to read them, you would have seen that the EF 100-400 L IS II, still has superb image quality even with a 1.4X III. Even using the TC to get there it still has equal or better image quality at 500mm or at 560mm than the Sigma Sport, and at half the weight. D'oh!!!

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:59:31 GMT

"If you had and you knew how to read them,..."

Geez, I don't. I don't rely on inner web reviews either, should I ? What does MTF stand for? Can you, please, teach me I am so in need of a good teacher and eager to learn. Thanx.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Waddizzle — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:18:39 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I might mention our Zoon has banned long teles and super zooms. No explanation as to why, but that's a bummer for me.

If you mean Zoo, then that is a bummer. I see no reason to justify that, not unless they went through some sort of incident with a guest who abused the privilege. Most zoos let you take photographs for personal use, but not for commercial purposes.

The Sigma 150-600 "C" is a big beast, and the 150-600 "S" is even bigger. If they let you carry a 70-200mm, they should let you carry the 100-400mm. They're arguably identical in size and weight. 🙂

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:06:17 GMT

Yes, I did mean 'Zoo'.

"...they should let you carry the 100-400mm."

I can't as I sold mine. I just never used it after getting the big Siggy S. You know it was fine before I got a zoom that did 600mm. After than the 100-400 just didn't do it for me anymore. Besides I have the 400mm f5.6 prime which I also like better.

Selling the 100-400 let me purchase the Tamron 150-600 and the little brother Sigma C version. More is better isn't it?

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

Waddizzle — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:49:02 GMT

"More is better isn't it?"

Not really. Sometimes, less is best. I'd rather go with a smaller lens with better IQ, and crop the images.

Re: Do I get a Canon 7D Mk II or a 70-200 F2.8?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:08:26 GMT

" I'd rather go with a smaller lens with better IQ, and crop the images."

But your goal is different than mine. I shot pictures for a living. Isn't my priority any longer. I now simply play with the equipment. Totally different approach. The more I have to play with, the better. It is my recreation. I have no idea how many lenses I have had in the past until now but without doubt it is in the hundreds. I have 40 or so currently. Until the 1Dx, I have all the 1 series, still do.