Upgrade to a 7Dii body or 100-400ii lens?

I currently have a Canon T5i and a 70-300L.

After just looking up a review on the new 100-400 it seems the image quality between it and the 70-300L are similar. Now I'm wondering if I should hold onto the 70-300L and buy a 7Dii? Reason being more megapixels to make the 300mm pictures more crop friendly.

Side question on selling my T5i since bodies drop in price so fast. Would I get a decent amount or should I just keep it?

Thanks!

The 7Dii has a 20.2 mp sensor, not a whole lot bigger than the T5i. How about the new 750/760D? It has a 24mp sensor - if cropping was your only requirement for an upgrade then this would be better!

Perhaps others with better technical know-how will be able to give you more info.

If you were not budget constrained, I would keep the T5i if you decided to get another body.

Uusally it is better to invest in glass but depends on what you are shooting. If it was sports or BIF then perhaps the 7dii would be better for its AF.

iroctd wrote in post #17529292
I currently have a Canon T5i and a 70-300L.

After just looking up a review on the new 100-400 it seems the image quality between it and the 70-300L are similar. Now I'm wondering if I should hold onto the 70-300L and buy a 7Dii? Reason being more megapixels to make the 300mm pictures more crop friendly.

Side question on selling my T5i since bodies drop in price so fast. Would I get a decent amount or should I just keep it?

Thanks!

Which do you need more, souped-up AF or a tiny bit of crop-ability and an even smaller increase in focal length?

I like the 70-300L as a price/ performance play, but the 100-400ii is a whole lot better, and will probably be class-leading for a decade. In that same timespan, the 7D2 could be replaced... twice. And, if you get the lens now, this time next year, or Black Friday/ Cyber Monday, or whenever, the 7D2 will be a bunch cheaper. The 100-400ii will likely experience fewer and lesser price cuts over the coming years. That all suggests "lens", to me.

iroctd wrote in post #17529292
.... Reason being more megapixels to make the 300mm pictures more crop friendly.

This is a weak argument in general. but here going from 18 to 20MP will do next to nothing for you.

100mm more on the other hand will really make a difference. to me the lens upgrade is the only thing worth considering, based on your initial post.

Thanks for all your answers, very helpful!

The better AF with the 7Dii would be nice but wouldn't get enough use as it is right now to make it a priority.

Browsing around I saw the new Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports (or Contemporary) Lens. Mainly because I can achieve 400mm (with my 1.4x teleconverter) on the 70-300L even though it is not great.

I've never been one to deviate from Canon lenses but it seems I can land more megapixels on my subject because at/around 600mm it will fill the frame more.

Now the question becomes 100-400ii or the Sigma 150-600 S/C which weighs more in either flavor and that isn't too fun sounding being that I hand hold a lot...

I think what I'm after is getting more close-ups of wildlife (head shots). Most of the time I'm not in a position to move closer so hence I'm weighing the option of 600mm vs 400mm. I know I would love the 100-400, the 150-600 seems like the weight would darken my sunny days.

The Sigma 150-600mm Sport is substantially larger and heavier than the Canon 100-400 MK2. The Sigma Contemporary is also larger, but not by as much. The 100-400 is also larger and heavier than your 70-300L, which is a pretty compact lens when you consider the focal length, performance and build quality.

You have to decide how large and heavy a lens you are able or willing to carry around. In my case, the 100-400 is the largest lens that will fit in my travel backpack with the rest of my kit, and any larger backpack will not fit in all airline carry on situations, which is critical for me (that backpack does not leave my person when we travel).

iroctd wrote in post #17529651
Thanks for all your answers, very helpful!

The better AF with the 7Dii would be nice but wouldn't get enough use as it is right now to make it a priority.

Browsing around I saw the new Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports (or Contemporary) Lens......

... hence I'm weighing the option of 600mm vs 400mm. I know I would love the 100-400, the 150-600 seems like the weight would darken my sunny days.

Now I think you are looking at the correct choices. I'd suggest the "C" for weight and cost, and maybe consider the tamron as well.

I'm a big fan of the 100-400mm II myself as being a great do all lens, but I can certainly see the appeal of 600mm!

I have the 70-300L and the tamron 150-600. The tamron is known to be a bit soft on the long end and mine is no exception. From the reviews I've read the sigma sport is a bit better but not a lot. If you can sell your 70-300 then the 100-400 II would be the way to go. IMO of course.

Also, with some price watching over time I've noticed the price of bodies seems to drop while the price of lenses seems to go up. So although the price of the 7D2 may be lower in a year it is a good chance the lens will be more. Lenses tend to hold their value longer.

Rod

Hi,
This not a technical posting but it is based on my recent experience.

Try to go for the 7DII AND the 100-400L ISII.
I have not regretted going for it - even though the 7DII and the 100-400L ISII came along a bit too close for financial comfort.

The MkII lens - compared with its MkI ancestor is like moving from a clapped out mini car to the latest V8 turbo. The MkIIs sharpness, focus speed and colour rendition will make it worth the expense.

The 7DII is also a worthy upgrade. This lens and camera combination should keep the average snapper happy for a couple of years. Having said that - I like the look of the new 5DS with all those megapixels stuffed under the bonnet. Damn it - the wife might insist on a new Rolex if a 5DS arrives. Oh! and I definitely can't get away with the excuse 'Look what I've bought you for your birthday, darling!'

EF100-400L is usm II will get you more bang for the buck.

I would upgrade the lens first.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #17597458
...
The 7DII is also a worthy upgrade. This lens and camera combination should keep the average snapper happy for a couple of years. ...

Can't help but marvel at the 'average snapper' with $4k+ worth of camera/lens!...

Perhaps we should bring our assumptions closer to Earth?

Sorry Makis - But looking at the list of gear some POTN members show it makes my mouth water.

On a serious note, I actually use the new 100-400MkII now, whereas I hardly used the mark I version - although it was capable of reasonable results it seemed to need lots of light and always needed a bit of sharpening - but it was, I suppose, old technology.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #17615268
Sorry Makis - But looking at the list of gear some POTN members show it makes my mouth water.

On a serious note, I actually use the new 100-400MkII now, whereas I hardly used the mark I version - although it was capable of reasonable results it seemed to need lots of light and always needed a bit of sharpening - but it was, I suppose, old technology.

No harm done... I have seen what the 'average' expectations have evolved in other hobbies/sports, much more expensive than photo snapping... (For example, the 'entry level sailboat' was a 24 footer in the 70s, a 27 footer in the 80s, a 32 footer in the 90s and now is probably a 40' monster... Happily I sold my 35' money pit in 2013 and I don't have to keep up with the Joneses! )