7D2 or 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II Upgrade for youth sports

So, I generally am able to figure out what to spend my money on, but today I find myself in decision deadlock.

I'm looking to solve a problem with reach. I am satisfied with the quality of shots that I get, but I am primarily concerned with reach. Also sometimes when putting my 300+1.4 on giving me 420, I have the reach, but at the cost of not being able to follow the action.

I've been on a bit of a hiatus since last November and hadn't really been following new products (outside of the lens which I'd been specifically waiting for). So today (Birthday!) I was ready to go get my lens, but... the 7d2 has me uncertain.

The relevant gear I have is:
5d3, 5d2 backup, 70-200 2.8II, 300 F/4 IS, 1.4X TC II.

Here's how I break down the options:
100-400:
PROS: Extra reach, great range for following action, Fast AF, can be used on any body I get, holds value well
CONS: Aperture is only good for daytime sports (IMO) and can't be used for extra reach for those evening games and all the indoor events I do.

7D2:
PROS: Gives me ~156->448mm FOV @ F/4 if I use my 1.4x TCII, Can sell 5d2, Cheaper, Opens up possibility of using other EF-S lenses, great AF system, My understanding I can use Manual + AutoISO + Exposure Comp with this body, which I can't in a 5d3. That would be my preferred shooting setup.
CONS: Bodies lose value fast, I am used to FF, will have to carry the 5d3 with an 85 or 50mm lens for more casual shots through the day.

There's other arugments and counter arugments I'm having with myself, mainly I generally believe in buying glass instead of bodies, and I've already got great cameras, but.... I'm leaning towards the 7d2 in this instance.

Thoughts?

I am trying to answer a similar quandary myself

With my son's college graduation fast approaching (this coming weekend... ) I decided to test IQ for reach.

I have a 60D a 5DIII and a EF 70-200 MkII.

Through a mis-understanding with our local rental shop, I missed the opportunity to reserve an EF 100-400 MkII (they do take reservations...) so, given that approval for purchase of said lens is in the deep future, I decided to rent/test the 1.4x and 2.0x Canon teleconverters (much more reallistic future buys).

There are two cases to consider:

a) 5D3 + 1.4 + EF 70-200 = 280 mm FOV or 60D + EF 70-200

MY take is that there is no observable penalty on IQ on the 5DIII and given the required magnification for the crop sensor, the former wins. Yes, you may have more pixels on subject, but your magnifying them to fill the frame hurts them. The 60D gets 1 stop advantage...

Result: At nearly 300 mm FOV the combination 5D3 + 1.4 + EF 70-200 wins by a small margin

b) 5D3 + 2.0 x + EF 70-200 = 400 mm FOV or 60D +1.4x +70-200 = approx 450 mm FOV

The AF is slower with the 2x and you lose two f-stops. There is a penalty in IQ as well. I can't decide IQ wise which body is ahead. If I were shooting any moving subjects, maybe the 60D would get the nod.

There is of course the case of 60D + 2x+ 70-200 for a FOV of 640 mm. The IQ of the samples I got was horrible, so much so, that I was looking for another chance to test it but it's been raining a lot in Houston.

How does all this translate to your problem?

I'd buy the 100-400 MkII, I think that for youth sports it is probably long enough.

If you need extra reach, you can buy the 1.4x and you will be even with the 7DII. (This is the reason for the long preamble... )

Unless you want a second body, in which case a slightly used 70D/7D/60D could do the trick as well.

I've already got two bodies, so I'm not looking to necessarily add a second body. I'm just looking for more reach as the 5d3 + 1.4x + 70-200 only gives 280, and that's not enough reach. I need to get to about 400. While I can do my 300 + 1.4x to get 420mm, I've then got no zoom. Which would be okay if I wanted to carry both bodies, but I'd rather just have one body on me.

The bonus of going with the 7d2 additionally would be being able to sell my 5d2 and end up only down about 800-900 bucks instead of down 2350 (Lens + Tax). That would give me over a thousand to put towards something else in the future.

I've been putting off getting a 100-400 for years though not really liking the push/pull design, and now that I can get it though, just don't want to

--
Richard Maynard

Get the 7D2 and a TC 1.4x III. Your 70-200 will be a 156-448 F4 with the TC and with the TCIII, no discernible hit on IQ.

I'll admit that while I recently purchased a 100-400ii, my 1.4x TCIII lived on my 70-200II for shooting karts (99% of what I shoot) and focus was plenty fast at tracking karts approaching at 60+mph.

I only bought the 100-400 because I am going to start doing karts on full size tracks. But I enjoy it on smaller sprint tracks too.

tonyxcom wrote in post #17553709
Get the 7D2 and a TC 1.4x III. Your 70-200 will be a 156-448 F4 with the TC and with the TCIII, no discernible hit on IQ.

That's definitely the direction I'm leaning. I'm currently using the TC 1.4 II. I've heard that for the 1.4 there's no discernible difference in IQ between the 2 and 3 versions of the TC. There's a local place that rents the TC's for pretty cheap, so will probably try and do a shoot off before deciding if it's worth putting 450 bucks into if I'm not going to see a difference. Maybe with the higher pixel density on the 7dM2 it will be worth the expense.

While I'd love to do both right now, can only do one or the other, and I think that in this rare case the body makes more sense, not because I'm upgrading one I've already got, but adding the utility of a crop. Then in addition to my 70-200 the crop expands the possible uses for my entire lineup.

Maybe it was my copy of the TCII, but the TCIII was sharper and had more contrast for me.

tonyxcom wrote in post #17553797
Maybe it was my copy of the TCII, but the TCIII was sharper and had more contrast for me.

I think I read that the 1.4x TC III has less (or no) CA, however, I don't see CA in the 1.4x TC II...

I vote for the 7d2. I had a 7d with the Sigma OS 70-200 and Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. I was getting lots of good, but not many great, images with the 7d.

Then, I got my first 7d2 and it had the focus issue many here have complained about. I returned it for a new 7d2 and since then, I'm loving it. I'm getting shots that I had never dreamed of. I'm shooting mostly U9 and U11 soccer and, of course, my favorite sport: log rolling.

You've got the 5D3, in this case I say get the lens.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 7DII, but given the gear you already have and the requirements that you're describing, I would suggest the 100-400 MkII instead of switching bodies. You'd be, natively, getting to 400 plus still be able to throw the 1.4 on there and get out to 560 in a pinch (granted, at f/8, but the 5DIII'll handle that.

Honestly, I'd recommend renting (lensrentals, etc) both items and try them out for yourself to see which works best for you.

Definitely get the lens. It will hold value and help get you your shots.

Ephur wrote in post #17553325
So, I generally am able to figure out what to spend my money on, but today I find myself in decision deadlock.

I'm looking to solve a problem with reach. I am satisfied with the quality of shots that I get, but I am primarily concerned with reach. Also sometimes when putting my 300+1.4 on giving me 420, I have the reach, but at the cost of not being able to follow the action.

I've been on a bit of a hiatus since last November and hadn't really been following new products (outside of the lens which I'd been specifically waiting for). So today (Birthday!) I was ready to go get my lens, but... the 7d2 has me uncertain.

The relevant gear I have is:
5d3, 5d2 backup, 70-200 2.8II, 300 F/4 IS, 1.4X TC II.

Here's how I break down the options:
100-400:
PROS: Extra reach, great range for following action, Fast AF, can be used on any body I get, holds value well
CONS: Aperture is only good for daytime sports (IMO) and can't be used for extra reach for those evening games and all the indoor events I do.

7D2:
PROS: Gives me ~156->448mm FOV @ F/4 if I use my 1.4x TCII, Can sell 5d2, Cheaper, Opens up possibility of using other EF-S lenses, great AF system, My understanding I can use Manual + AutoISO + Exposure Comp with this body, which I can't in a 5d3. That would be my preferred shooting setup.
CONS: Bodies lose value fast, I am used to FF, will have to carry the 5d3 with an 85 or 50mm lens for more casual shots through the day.

There's other arugments and counter arugments I'm having with myself, mainly I generally believe in buying glass instead of bodies, and I've already got great cameras, but.... I'm leaning towards the 7d2 in this instance.

Thoughts?

Ephur.
Looks more like the situation of which to buy FIRST!
Many times I have been in that situation and down the road purchasing the other item in question.
Looking at my gear list below I am familiar with your situation as both the 7D Mark II and the 100-400 Mark II are in my scope.
Shooting a ton of baseball this spring, your situation has entered my mind. For years I was shooting a pair of 7D's with the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II and the 100-400 " Old Trombone" Dust Pump.
However when the light would drop, increasing the ISO's would show it negative affects. Same with Football in shaded fields during the fall.
Adding the 5D Mark III last year with the cleaner ISO and of course Full Frame and the an improved AF of the 7D, I added a second Mark III earlier this year. This spring I shot almost exclusively with a pair of 5D Mark III's. Again the 70-200 Mark II, 1.4 EXT III and the 100-400 Old Trombone Push/Pull, which I actually like to use.
So like you I am thinking which to buy......FIRST!
Are you planning on carrying two bodies while shooting?
For me, I never bought a 5D Mark II because it did NOT have the AF System of the 7D.
For me, shooting action I know I would rather have similarities of both the 5D Mark III paired with a 7D Mark II or even the original, like I did last year.
With the 7D Mark II's Improved ISO and more reach than a 5D Mark III, I am seeing the need.
When shooting the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 100-400 Original, yes I can see a difference. There better be as they were designed almost ten years apart. Better image quality on the full frame.

So like you, we are in the same situation
I go back to my original statement.
Which to buy first?

Tough choice.Yes
Wrong choice. No

You can not lose...........and that is a good thing.
Enjoy!

Heya,

You already have the 5D3, I'd get the longer glass.

Very best,

I'd sell the 5D2, if you were inclined to, and get the 7D2

7D2 + 5D3 = Win/Win. JMHO. I have the 7D2, but the 5D2 and I'm going to get the 5D3 as soon as I can.

ksbal wrote in post #17575915
I'd sell the 5D2, if you were inclined to, and get the 7D2

7D2 + 5D3 = Win/Win. JMHO. I have the 7D2, but the 5D2 and I'm going to get the 5D3 as soon as I can.

So I had put aside the money for the lens. So I ended up purchasing it. I am certainly pleased with it so far. I much prefer the images from the 100-400 than the 70-200 with my 1.4, and the improved reach has been nice so far.

I was carrying two bodies around, the 5d2 and 5d3, but never used the 5d2 because the AF of the Mark3 had just spoiled me to far, so I ended up lens swapping and just carrying the 5d3, but it was certainly not ideal.

I did what you suggested and was able to sell my 5d2, Tamron 28-75, and some other misc gear I didn't use to raise about $1500. Put that towards the purchase the of the 7d2. I'm so happy that I did.

The 7d2's AF is a treat even compared to what I consider fantastic AF from the 5d3.

Last night I had my first opportunity to shoot with both bodies, using my 5d3 + 70-200 for video, and my 7d2 + 100-400 for stills. This was for my sons middle school choir performance, not exactly what I purhcased the 7d2 for, but I wanted to be able to get stills and the video. My video turned out fantastic. The stills, turned out average. I was shooting wide open @ 3200 ISO with shutter speeds between 1/60 (bad!) and 1/125 (okay). I had EC set to + 2/3, in order to try and ensure I didn't end up with noise in dark areas. The noise was correctable, but lends to a little softness with the amount of NR needed.

I can't wait for the end of summer to roll around... and for football season to start. I will probably carry the 5d3+70-200 and the 7d2+100-400. This will give me good options for the long reach often needed, and to stay closer to the end zones where plays are coming at me, even before they get there. And still be able to switch bodies quickly to get the shots as they're hitting the end zone, and also for other misc shots that come through the day.

Thanks all for the feedback.