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

[Stzvero]

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!!!!!

[Waddizzle]

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.

[ebiggs1]

"...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.

[diverhank]

---

@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.

[TTMartin]

---

@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.

[Stzvero]

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.

[TTMartin]

---

@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

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

[TTMartin]

---

@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. 

[Stzvero]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ebiggs1]

"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'!