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]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

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.

[TTMartin]

---

@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!!!

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.   🙂

[ebiggs1]

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?  

[Waddizzle]

"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.

[ebiggs1]

" 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.