Options

Question of the day

BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
edited May 29, 2012 in Cameras
In a 3 months Ill have to opportunity to have a free


Camera Canon 7 D

or

Lens Canon 70-200 2.8

Currently Im shooting with my Canon 30 D , sigma 24-70 2.8 and am wondering if I should get the 7 D or the 70-200 ?????????????????????

What do you think?
:photo

Comments

  • Options
    cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2012
    Well if you need 200mm, the 7D won't fix that for you
    Photos
  • Options
    jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2012
    cmason speaks the truth, like if you have a sports event to cover you will want the 70-200. However the 7D would be a massive improvement over the 30D in every way, so if you can do with your existing lens for a while longer I would go for the 7D. AF, FPS, ISO, IQ, 18mp... the list goes on.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2012
    I hear you.
    I can rent a 70-200 f4 for $40 (week-end) or the 70-200 f 2.8 for $ 50
    To rent a 7 D its around $80 ish
    I still have a old 75-300 mm but its 3.5 5.6 which in San Diego is ok I guess (it does a pretty decent job) but doesn t look really pro.


    About the 70-200 f4 vs 2.8 besides the price is there a HUGE difference in quality?
    Everybody I know swear ONLY by the 2.8 is it a must or just a trend/preference
    :photo
  • Options
    cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2012
    The question really can not be answered.

    But one way to consider it is this: the Canon 70-200 2.8 L has been on the market since 1995, replacing the 80-200 2.8L. So, purchasing the lens will basically last you a lifetime. On the other hand, Canon releases a new camera roughly every 2- 3 years or so, meaning that when you get the 7D, in about a year it will be 'old' replaced by another model.
    Photos
  • Options
    jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2012
    Bountyphotographer wrote: »
    About the 70-200 f4 vs 2.8 besides the price is there a HUGE difference in quality?
    Everybody I know swear ONLY by the 2.8 is it a must or just a trend/preference

    The f/4 version is sharper than the original f/2.8 version. It is also half the weight, and a bit smaller. The f/2.8 Mark II is at least as sharp as the f/4, but it costs a lot more.

    f/2.8 will give you twice the shutter speed as f/4. People buy the f/2.8 for low light use. f/2.8 will also activate the high precision mode of your center AF point. (assuming the 30D has that, I forget, but the 7D does)
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,911 moderator
    edited April 3, 2012
    In addition to what Jack said, which is accurate, the "IS" versions of these lenses have curved diaphragm blades, allowing somewhat better bokeh stopped down. The IS versions are also weather sealed, as long as you also supply a front filter that is weather sealed. (You also have to maintain the seals through regular lens service and repair.)

    All that said, I have 4 - 70-200mm-ish zoom lenses (a very important range for what I do) and of those I could do with just the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS).

    I use the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM mostly as a travel and outdoor event lens. Indoor stuff is always with the f2.8L.

    (My other 2 zooms in this range are just backup and hazardous duty, nowadays.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    Moving PicturesMoving Pictures Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited April 3, 2012
    Lens. Hands down.
    Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
    Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited April 3, 2012
    I thought about the camera being replaced in a couple years, but 7 D will still be more fashionable than all the other 30,40,50 and now 60 D. Im sure bunch of people are still using there old Mark 5 bought many years ago and are still proud of it.
    The lens is also really tempting but using a 30 D with a 70-200 2.8 ...............I don t know???
    Anyway thanks a lot, I still have 3-4 months to go.

    Bounty
    :photo
  • Options
    Moving PicturesMoving Pictures Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited April 3, 2012
    Bountyphotographer wrote: »
    I thought about the camera being replaced in a couple years, but 7 D will still be more fashionable than all the other 30,40,50 and now 60 D. Im sure bunch of people are still using there old Mark 5 bought many years ago and are still proud of it.
    The lens is also really tempting but using a 30 D with a 70-200 2.8 ...............I don t know???
    Anyway thanks a lot, I still have 3-4 months to go.

    Bounty

    A f2.8 70-200 and 30D is what I used for much of the last two years.

    I've had that f2.8 lens through my entire newspaper career - one reporter spot, two editor sports, years of freelancing ... had that puppy 13 years. It's outlasted all my bodies (Elan II, 10d, 20d, 30d) and a couple of relationships.

    If I had to do it all over again, good glass before body, every. Single. Time.

    Or, as I think I mentioned, I slapped my f2.8 70-200 on the old 20d before I shipped the old body across the country to a buddy as a present. Rock. Solid. Images. Why? You can't beat good glass.
    Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
    Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited April 3, 2012
    I would jump on the lens over the body...glass over body for me.

    Good Luck with your decision.
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 4, 2012
    If he doesn't need the focal length, he should get the 7D. For example parents with kids age 4 and under. Simply not much need for a 70-200 then. They're not playing sports. But if he does need it or just wants it, the 30D will carry him as long as he wants.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited April 4, 2012
    Thats going to be the longest 4 months of my life.
    :photo
  • Options
    angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited April 4, 2012
    Bountyphotographer wrote: »

    What do you think?


    Free? Really? The glass will hold it's value much longer than the camera. But Free?

    Me? Besides doing a bunch of >bowdown.gifbowbowdown.gif I'd take the glass! Glass is Half full!
    tom wise
  • Options
    OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 4, 2012
    Yeah, personally I say the lens is definitely priority.
    www.overfocused.com
  • Options
    Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2012
    Just to give another suggestion. If you get a 7D you can use higher ISOs than with the 30D and not
    get more noise. So if you get a 7D and sell your 30D you could almost buy a used 70-200 f/4 allowing
    you to shoot in the same light as with a 70-200 f/2.8 and an old 30D. Also the package will be lighter.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Yes, almost free. Its called powerofvitality my company want us to be fit and going to doctor, running marathon, jogging,..............being healthy give us points. After so many points we can redeem pretty much anything out there, bikes, garden hoses, camera,movies tickets.....................Of course a 70-200 2.8 requires 100,000 point which take a couple years to acquire. Actually I have a copay whenever I go to the doctor for blood work,physical..............so its not entirely free but pretty close to it.
    :photo
  • Options
    kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Me personally, I would go with the better body unless you really, really need that high quality 70-200. If you don't find yourself saying "MAN!....I really wish I had that 70-200 right now for these shots!"...then I'd go with the body. I say this as someone that has a great body (a camera body I mean!...Laughing.gif) and some descent lenses. I've never really felt like a failure with the good (but not 'great') quality lenses I have. I don't generally shoot fast moving subjects like in sports though.
    https://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited May 3, 2012
    OK Im still not sure what to take every week I change my mind. If Im lucky by next week I should be able to choose the lens or the 7D body.
    I do love taking pictures of sport though, but I feel cheated when I walk around with my Canon 30 D.
    With my luck I'll get the lens and the 30 D will stop working in 4-5 month....I know im thinking too much
    :photo
  • Options
    jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited May 3, 2012
    7D. I had a 30D. I recently went back and looked at a bunch of 30D pics. ISO 400 was the limit for high quality. 800 was starting to show some noise, and 1600 was for emergencies only. 3200 was pointless.

    Here is a 7D shot of mine at 3200:
    1174173098_ejBbd-X2-1.jpg

    Hey if you don't need more than ISO 800 or 8mp, then maybe a 70-200/2.8 makes sense. But I'd rather have a 7D. I think people are having selective memories about old bodies. I'd take the money I saved and spend it on a 70-200 f/4L IS.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited May 23, 2012
    Lens or body
    I finally decided and got the lens Canon 70-200 2.8 a couple days ago.
    I dont feel sorry at all concerning the canon 7 D because this lens is awesome.
    The lens is so big that nobody can see my old 30 D anyway lol.
    Didnt have time to shot yet, I only took quick snap shot but can tell right away that it is a great lens. It looks great,feels fantastic,autofocus in not time and really motivate me to go shoot portrait and sport photography.

    So here it is the lens won and am pretty glad it did.


    Thanks for all your input


    Bounty
    :photo
  • Options
    OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2012
    You'll have the lens much longer than you would the 7D. Enjoy a wonderful piece of glass :D
    www.overfocused.com
  • Options
    Quincy TQuincy T Registered Users Posts: 1,090 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2012
    Lens is an investment, and while a 7D might be a big improvement, it's nothing like owning a 70-200 2.8, which will hold nearly the same value for a great deal of time. The same, sadly, cannot be said for any camera body.
  • Options
    BountyphotographerBountyphotographer Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited May 25, 2012
    Yes indeed, now I will look for a better body but am not that desperate.
    :photo
  • Options
    Quincy TQuincy T Registered Users Posts: 1,090 Major grins
    edited May 27, 2012
    Bountyphotographer wrote: »
    Yes indeed, now I will look for a better body but am not that desperate.

    I'd get an old 5D. I have the 7D, and I want a 5D for goodness sake. The 5D is relatively cheap now...but, like you, I just spent $1,300 on a 70-200 2.8 IS. It will take some time for both my pockets, and my wife's "photographic purchase tolerance meter", to refill.
  • Options
    Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited May 29, 2012
    Bountyphotographer wrote: »
    In a 3 months Ill have to opportunity to have a free


    Camera Canon 7 D

    or

    Lens Canon 70-200 2.8

    Currently Im shooting with my Canon 30 D , sigma 24-70 2.8 and am wondering if I should get the 7 D or the 70-200 ?????????????????????

    What do you think?

    nice company benefit!

    my vote would be for the 70-200 2.8
  • Options
    Quincy TQuincy T Registered Users Posts: 1,090 Major grins
    edited May 29, 2012
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    nice company benefit!

    my vote would be for the 70-200 2.8

    Holy crap I totally missed the free part...WAT.
Sign In or Register to comment.