This is the glass i have.. 70D or 7D II ?

Mathiau wrote in post #17577129
one thing i worry about on the 70D is the screen that comes out and an accident waiting to happen and snap it off or something, sure it doesn't happen but another what if to break and knowing me!

I bought the 70D from Costco as a kit. The only things I have left from the kit are the body, memory card, and the batteries. The rest I either don't use or I gave away. The 70D is my very first DSLR, I had been very involved with film back in the days. Knowing what I know now, I probably would have bought a 6D instead(along with the lenses I bought after the kit - 50mm F1.8, 24-105F4, 70-200L F4 IS). FPS, multiple focusing points, and some of the other bragging points for both the 70D and 7D II are not as high on my list. I shoot mostly macro and landscapes, macro 100% manual focus - 90%AF for landscapes(mountains don't move -- run like hell if they do!), manual exposure, with MagicLantern RAW spot metering. I have grown to appreciate the fine grain and lower noise of FF and it has become almost like a dare to eliminate noise as much as possible. The one thing I really (REALLY) like about the 70D is the articulating screen. I shoot quite a bit of macro and it's so nice to have the camera laying almost on the ground and be somewhat comfortable while viewing the screen in live view! Of course, I had to buy the 70D(or any other DSLR) to realize what I would really like after getting my feet wet with digital photography!

So, as much as i would love to get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens (https://www.vistek.ca …-telephoto-zoom-lens.aspx ) , the added $500 is pushing it for me, since i am now also putting together a new computer.

i know IS is great but with a Canon 7D Mark II , would i be shooting myself in the foot if i got the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens (https://www.vistek.ca …-telephoto-zoom-lens.aspx ) instead with no IS

I waited to get the 70-200. I knew I didn't want the F2.8 because of its weight and bulk -- from what I have read those are the only flaws on that lens! There are other options for lenses in this range. The one thing I can tell you is that it is very impressive to be able to hand hold the lens at 1/30th and still come out with nice images. I'm fairly steady, just not 1/30th at 200mm steady! Just some food for thought.

By the 70-200 f/4 non-IS used. Get a great lens at a good price and then sell it with little or no lost investment if/when you decide to upgrade to IS and/or 2.8.

Although they are very hard to find.

CheleA wrote in post #17580273
I waited to get the 70-200. I knew I didn't want the F2.8 because of its weight and bulk -- from what I have read those are the only flaws on that lens! There are other options for lenses in this range. The one thing I can tell you is that it is very impressive to be able to hand hold the lens at 1/30th and still come out with nice images. I'm fairly steady, just not 1/30th at 200mm steady! Just some food for thought.

Very true, especially once winter comes or over cast days and i am trying to get some action shots, i hate it when it looks good on the camera but once you get it on a PC you see it is blurred, so frustrating

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17580279
By the 70-200 f/4 non-IS used. Get a great lens at a good price and then sell it with little or no lost investment if/when you decide to upgrade to IS and/or 2.8.

Although they are very hard to find.

I had thought that too, i did see 1 going for about $1k CAD on ebay.ca, good advice really, once i am in Calgary i can find some photogroup's and shop around for a used IS.

the 18-135 should hold me over for my week with my sister and her 4 kids, appreciate the input!

I have no idea what the used prices are where you live, but where I live the used prices are very high --- great to resell the gear! I bought the 70-200F4 IS from B&H for $1,100(after Canon's $200 mail-in rebate), that price included shipping + no tax. The cheapest I found that lens used was $950, I didn't want to take a chance on something containing electronics and moving parts for a $150 savings. I also bought a brand new 24-105F4 L for less than I could find it used locally or online.

Get a 70D, keep the Sigma 10-20 and the nifty fifty, get rid of the Sigma 18-200 and get a proper normal zoom lenses. Because you already have a 10-20 get a Canon 24-70 f4 for very nice sharpness and a macro mode or a Canon 24-105 f4 for a little extra reach.

To the OP of this thread - several comments.

First I have a 70D. it's my main APS-C camera (backups = 40D & SL1). With the exception of some AF surprises (I've reverted to center point AF & AE shooting w/ap>2.8) - IMHO, the 70D is a solid camera. While initially skeptical, at least, I really like the touch screen. It's easy, intuitive, and fast. And it works.

The more I use the newer STM lenses, the more I like them. The 18-135mm is probably a great single-lens solution. Now that I have multiple APS-C bodies (I just recently added the backups), I tend to pair the 18-55mm STM (great MFD & IQ, a real sleeper of a lens - a real surprise, again!) with it's complimentary sibling, the 55-250mm STM. Again, nice IQ, light weight, very affordable optics. I hear the 18-135 may be marginally sharper - not that sharpness is all that (sorry for the potential heresy).

The kit lens purchased with my original 60D was the oft-maligned EF-S 18-200mm "all in one." Needless to say, the 60D is long gone - off to college, and the kit lens (above) still remains - mounted today on the 70D or its backups. In fact (more heresy) I just this week added the Tamron 16-300mm VC PZD and Canon's newly released 50mm f1.8 STM (as an upgrade to my 50mm f1.8 Mk I). the later is a nice mid-range portrait lens on an APS-C sensor camera.

If the best lens is the lens on the camera you have with you, applying that theory, you may wish to consider either of the above all in ones. While I now have 38 lenses available for daily use (when they are not out on loan?), rarely a day goes by when the 18-200 or now, maybe the 16-300 is not used. earlier today, I documented a construction project at home with the 70D & the new tamron. such lenses, even if not as tack sharp as - say - the 24-105L or the 17-40L or any prime lens of your choosing - provide compositional flexibility - unequaled except, perhaps, with my old "paparazi" lens - the 35-350mm L (which really requires a monopod/tripod - as there is no IS - to channel my inner WJC).

Other faves on the crop bodies are - again stm glass - the 24 (ef-s) and 40 (ef) pancakes. sweet, cheap, light - almost comically, nice contrast, good color saturation - what's not too like? I cannot speak about the new 50mm stm (not a pancake) as it has just arrived & I've only a handful of shots with it to date.

When circumstances permit, another favorite - for wonderful IQ - is the 70-200m L IS - I use the f4 - as I don't relish the size/cost of the f2.8. This is such a sweet lens, I don't think you can possibly go wrong with this lens. Some days when I find myself a bit flat creatively, I'll take this lens and just shoot minutia - sometimes just chasing light and shadows. I really enjoy this particular lens. Can't quite describe it.

At the short end, on an APS-C, it's a focal length equivalent of 112mm - which I find to be a very comfortable upper body portrait lens - or tighter, moving away from the shortest FL. I've also enjoyed decent results using the long end for close-up work (not true macro shots).

Anyhow, I think the 70D plus good glass probably adds more to your capabilities than the pricier 7D2. Again, even if you discount its solid video abilities, the 70D is a good still camera - by any standard.

I'd encourage you to not automatically equate sharpness to good glass. When considering any lens, my first issue is - does this lens extend my present capabilities? if not, than why? sharp is good, except when it's not good.

enjoy!

Let me be another voice in favor of the 18-135 IS STM - the versatility and quality for the price is like stealing if you get it used or as a kit. It makes me not use primes as much as I feel like I should, but the focal range makes it perfect for casual walk-arounds and general use. It also makes me wish there were an equally-good 28-200... IS STM, not the no-IS USM with horrible IQ that does exist. If I were getting a crop, and didn't have one already, I'd definitely get it in a kit. No questions. Too cheap to pass up on; delay something else if you have to.

No one mentioned the 7D[not mll]. Great camera and today very affordable. Lens-for an L, 24-105 walk around is pretty good. But I love my Tamron 18-270 and I have the old version! With the 7D and Tamron, quite a few bucks left over for ?
my thoughts.

ardeekay wrote in post #17589136
No one mentioned the 7D[not mll]. Great camera and today very affordable. Lens-for an L, 24-105 walk around is pretty good. But I love my Tamron 18-270 and I have the old version! With the 7D and Tamron, quite a few bucks left over for ?
my thoughts.

Probably because the OP asked which to choose between the 70D and the 7D2, and based on his needs, the 70D looks to meet his needs better. If he needed better autofocus and more FPS the 7D would be a good option at a lower price point than the 7D2.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17589156
Probably because the OP asked which to choose between the 70D and the 7D2, and based on his needs, the 70D looks to meet his needs better. If he needed better autofocus and more FPS the 7D would be a good option at a lower price point than the 7D2.

Just offered that since he did mention dollars a few times.

IMO, the decision between the IS and non-IS 70-200mm lens is not just about the IS capability. It has slightly better IQ, better weather sealing and nicer looking bokeh by virtue of its rounded iris blades.

Whether a person purchases an IS or a non-IS 70-200mm f/4L lens also depends on that photographer's style of shooting. I use my 70-200mm lens for more than just traditional telephoto subjects. I carry it everywhere as part of a two camera (7D) system in tandem with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. I shoot way over 1/3 of my imagery with the 70-200mm f/4L IS, including all of my dog and people portraits.

I owned the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS model for several years and I use my IS version 4-5 times more often because I am not a slave to bright lighting conditions.

Since I am carrying this lens everywhere, I shoot in a great variety of conditions. The IS capability is certainly a great help.

I have been shooting with this lens since it first came out in November 2006. I purchased it as soon as B&H in New York had it in stock. That means that I have been shooting with it for 8-years and 7-months, or about 103 months. When I purchased the lens it cost about $500 more than the non-IS (I was able to sell the non-IS lens for the price I paid for it). That means this lens, pro-rated, has cost me less than five dollars a month which I consider a very good price since I probably use it ten or more times per month.

That's an interesting observation, RPCrowe. I've not seen anything before about the IQ being better on the IS vs non-IS. I assumed they were the same optics just with vs without the IS. Unfortunately, CPS doesn't have the non-IS version of either the 2.8 or 4 available for evaluation. And even less fortunate is I borrowed the 2.8 IS and fell absolutely in love with it. So IMHO, anything less would be a temporary measure.

it's a nice lens. using the 70-200mm F4 IS is a pleasure.

the only downside I've ever noted is that it is more conspicuous than I prefer. thus, I rarely, if ever, use it as part of a two camera tandem for street photography.

would that the substitutes had equal IQ.

for what it's worth, to date, my substitutes (for lower "street" profile/visibility) have included: the 24-105mm f4L (ok IQ, red ring covered by a black lens band), the 28-135mm, ef-s 55-250mm STM, the ef-s 18-200mm (heresy?), and most recently the tamron 16-300mm vc pzd (verdict still out as images are ~1000).

I've also substituted the 85mm 1.8 (often used as the tandem compliment to the old 35mm f2 - see smile) & the 100mm 2.8L macro (again, red ring covered), in such a "street" tandem. both are nice, for different reasons.

an alternative to the 70-200mm with comparable IQ is the now-ancient & discontinued "paparazzi" lens, the 35-350mm push-pull L lens - without IS, ugh! good luck finding a good copy. as it requires either the arms of Hercules or a monopod, it is not exactly low profile. but ahhh, the IQ. for those times when low profile is not an issue!

fwiw, I evaluated its replacement beast, the 28-300mm IS, from CPS and felt positively beat up - after a 6 hour continuous shoot (about 5 or so miles hiking w/monopod). heavier, more massive, tightening ring was problematic, lens foot/collar would not rotate (so converting to portrait from landscaping was a total PITA), etc. my evaluation left me hating this newer lens - but again, great IQ, fabulous IS - amazingly, I shot with a 5D2 on auto ISO and had useable images at 300mm with 1/10 second shutter. can't criticize its IS. damn shame it's such a pig of a lens.

I've thought (but never had the fortitude) to transform the 70-200mm into a franken-monster by spray painting it black. not likely I risk screwing it up.

another honorable mention - is the old tamron 70-300mm VC. it's cheap, fairly light, inconspicuous, and not bad. I probably should have listed this as another alternative - except that I usually (force of habit?) mount this lens to a 1D3 on such tandem excursions - for whatever reason, I've grown accustomed to the slightly longer reach of the 1.3x APS-H. it's a nice compliment to the 24-105mm on the 5d2. simply a comfortable, affordable lens - a real sleeper - hint, one can push-pull the zoom using the base of the lens hood. quick!