7d Mark II or 100-400 II

Started my EOS adventure with the 30d back when it came out. Last April I purchased the 5d Mark III, thoroughly enjoy the camera. One thing I do notice about the 5d over the 30d is the "lack" of reach, typical for a FF vs APS-C . Since I made this change and wanting a quality lens with reach, I had planned on saving up and getting the new version of the 100=400 II. Have been following some of the threads here about the 7d Mark II and now hesitant about getting the 100-400II first.

For those who might have been down this road, would you get the lens before the camera and hope the 30d would suffice for a year or so...or get the 7d mark II and come back in a year and get the lens. I currently have the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender. Kinda leaning towards the lens but really want the focus ability and shutter rate that the 7d markII has.

Wanting the reach and shutter speed for wildlife and sports...

Knowing what the 5d mark III offers will I be disappointed trying to use the 30d with 100-400II

Thoughts?

_-

100-400ii and 5d3 is a great Motorsport combo

I use it every weekend

You do realise that the 30D offers EXACTLY ZERO "reach" advantage over a 5DIII? Crop the 5DIII image down to match the field of view of the 30D and you will be left with 8.5 Megapixels, to the 30D's 8. So I would initially get the 100-400 II and just put it on the 5DIII, and take advantage of that camera's advanced AF system, which is virtually identical to that on the 7DII. Considering how much newer the 5DIII is over the 30D it's going to give you so much better quality at the same pixel density.

Then I would look at getting a 7DII, for the additional pixel density to help with the "reach" problems. The AF module in the 7DII is also slightly improved over that in the 5DIII, so that will also be a slight improvement.

Alan

drifter106 wrote in post #17645528
Started my EOS adventure with the 30d back when it came out. Last April I purchased the 5d Mark III, thoroughly enjoy the camera. One thing I do notice about the 5d over the 30d is the "lack" of reach, typical for a FF vs APS-C . Since I made this change and wanting a quality lens with reach, I had planned on saving up and getting the new version of the 100=400 II. Have been following some of the threads here about the 7d Mark II and now hesitant about getting the 100-400II first.

For those who might have been down this road, would you get the lens before the camera and hope the 30d would suffice for a year or so...or get the 7d mark II and come back in a year and get the lens. I currently have the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender. Kinda leaning towards the lens but really want the focus ability and shutter rate that the 7d markII has.

Wanting the reach and shutter speed for wildlife and sports...

Knowing what the 5d mark III offers will I be disappointed trying to use the 30d with 100-400II

Thoughts?
_-

The 7DII and 100-400II will be a great "long reach" combo, and arguably ideal for wildlife (unless you can afford a 1Dx + 600mm prime), but the 5D3 and 100-400II will be a significant (reach) step up from your 5D3 + 70-200 + 1.4x TC. You could also add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400II as the 5D3 will AF at f/8.

You don't mention which of the 70-200 f/2.8 models you have. I understand the 100-400II is competitive with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but the IS II is a step up from the earlier models - thus if you don't have the IS II then the 100-400II would be a bigger leap in terms of sharpness (especially when comparing the 70-200 with a TC).

BigAl007 wrote in post #17645891
You do realise that the 30D offers EXACTLY ZERO "reach" advantage over a 5DIII? Crop the 5DIII image down to match the field of view of the 30D and you will be left with 8.5 Megapixels, to the 30D's 8. So I would initially get the 100-400 II and just put it on the 5DIII, and take advantage of that camera's advanced AF system, which is virtually identical to that on the 7DII. Considering how much newer the 5DIII is over the 30D it's going to give you so much better quality at the same pixel density.

Then I would look at getting a 7DII, for the additional pixel density to help with the "reach" problems. The AF module in the 7DII is also slightly improved over that in the 5DIII, so that will also be a slight improvement.

Alan

No, I did not know that...thank you for sharing that.

sploo wrote in post #17646002
The 7DII and 100-400II will be a great "long reach" combo, and arguably ideal for wildlife (unless you can afford a 1Dx + 600mm prime), but the 5D3 and 100-400II will be a significant (reach) step up from your 5D3 + 70-200 + 1.4x TC. You could also add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400II as the 5D3 will AF at f/8.

You don't mention which of the 70-200 f/2.8 models you have. I understand the 100-400II is competitive with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but the IS II is a step up from the earlier models - thus if you don't have the IS II then the 100-400II would be a bigger leap in terms of sharpness (especially when comparing the 70-200 with a TC).

I have the 70-200 without the IS...


so glad I asked this question and got an answer that will help in the decision making process.


thanks 2 both of you guys for the valuable input. Will help me in making the right decision.

Both

I would go with the lens vs the new body. Crop bodies let you get more, overall pixels on the subject, but do not actually give you any more reach/magnification. The subject is reproduced at exactly the same size on the sensor; to get more actual magnification, you have to use a longer lens. Crop bodies for wildlife and stuff are nice because you don't have to start out with a (fairly) heavy crop to get your framing when you're already focal length limited [I.e you already have as long of a lens as you can afford/is available and your subject is still too far away]. In that case you have more pixels covering your subject to start out.

So, short answer would be 5DIII + 100-400II > 7DII + 70-200 non-IS.

drifter106 wrote in post #17646055
I have the 70-200 without the IS...

so glad I asked this question and got an answer that will help in the decision making process.

thanks 2 both of you guys for the valuable input. Will help me in making the right decision.

No question then: 100-400II; you should see a huge step in sharpness vs the older 70-200 + TC. With the IS on the 100-400II you'll also be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds when your subject movement allows it.

I have no idea if this will help or not, but here is some testing a guy did showing off the differences between camera/lens combos... so maybe this will help to have real pictures to back up what you might want first.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1435631


But I'm agreeing with 'both'

sploo wrote in post #17646126
No question then: 100-400II; you should see a huge step in sharpness vs the older 70-200 + TC. With the IS on the 100-400II you'll also be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds when your subject movement allows it.

Yeah. The 70-200 V1 was not known to be a sharp lens.

digital paradise wrote in post #17646154
Yeah. The 70-200 V1 was not known to be a sharp lens.

Yea, not a bad lens - but not a patch on the IS II. Anyway, here's a hopefully useful comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

It's the old 70-200 with a Canon 1.4X TC (at 280mm and f/5.6) vs the 100-400II at 300mm and f/5.6 (both on a 1Ds III). Quite a significant difference.

The 100-400mm on the 5D3 is an amazing good combo. I'd get the lens first.

Definitely the lens. The 5D3 would play very well with the 100-400 II. As well, the zoom's price probably won't budge in the next year, but the 7D2's may very well drop (and there should be some great deals on used bodies). Actually, the zoom's price may actually increase...

I had the 100-400 II on the 70D to shoot wildlide/birds (but not BIF). As soon as I got a newer camera, the 6D, the wife took away my 70D for herself. Now I am thinking whether or not to get the 7DII, or continue using the 6D.