what's the better upgrade

<p>What's the better upgrade? Which has the most significant improvement over its earlier verision?<br>

Canon 7D to 7D MkII<br>

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS to 70-200 2.8 IS II<br>

Canon 24-70 2.8 to 24-70 2.8 II</p>

<p>Depends on what you are shooting and under what conditions.</p>

<p>Well . . . I agree with Jeff: you need to supply a bit more information, please.</p>

<p>BUT as I generally do not to give one sentence answers . . .<br>

- IF you are mainly shooting Weddings, (which I guessed from you having a location in your memebership name)<br>

- and IF you already have the thre listed items (i.e. 7D; 70 to 200/2.8L IS; 24 to 70/2.8L) then IMO a better "upgrade" is to keep what you already have and get a 5DMkIII to go with them.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the replies. I shot weddings part time for about 8 yrs but now mostly shoot just family events, kids sports, travel, and occasional portraits and events. Out of the 3 above, I can say the one I have been most disappointed with (sharpness) is the 24-70 2.8 when shooting indoor sports at 2.8. But my question above is just technically speaking, which has canon made the most improvement on for better image quality. I currently do not own a full frame (sold the 5d) but will probably get the 5d mkII sometime in the near future. Indoor basketball, volleyball, karate, baseball, marching band, I'm looking to gear up more for that now as opposed to weddings. </p>

<p>This is pretty obvious. Upgrade the camera. The 7D and 7DMKII are essentially two different cameras. The MKII's better high ISO performance will probably fix your having to shoot at F2.8 which should improve your 24-70s sharpness. Its faster frame rate is small an advantage with the sports shooting. There are other features that make it a stellar camera. If you are not going to go to frame you will find your lenses a bit tight so you may want to add a wide angle if you do not already have one..</p>

<p>I would be very surprised if going from version one to version two on either of these lenses would make any appreciable difference.</p>

<p>Thanks Rick. i have the 17-40 4.0 lens as my wide angle. I've been doing some research this morning and it doesn't appear that photoshop or lightroom currently supports 7d MkII raw files. That would be a problem for me. I'm sure i could convert raw to tiff or jpeg using the software that comes with the camera but i'd like to still be able to manipulate white balance in lightroom using the full flexibility of raw files. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would be very surprised if going from version one to version two on either of these lenses [24-70] would make any appreciable difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I have found that version two to be significantly sharper than version one, with which I was always a little disappointed. But I'm not sure that the upgrade would be worth doing in your case, Delanza.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“But my question above is just technically speaking, which has canon made the most improvement on for better image quality.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I also think that the 7D >>> 7D MkII has ‘<strong><em>more technical improvements</em></strong>’.<br /> But I also think that depending upon a precise shooting situation there might be times when one would appreciate the <strong><em>‘most technical improvement on image quality’</em></strong> because of an upgrade of the lens.<br /> There is subtle but significant difference in the meaning of those two sentences.</p>

<p>I’ve used all the four lenses, but not the two bodies; I have only used the 7D. Therefore my first comment, above, is made from a comparison of: theory; technical specifications; and other users’ comments. However I can give comments on the lens comparisons as some examples of my second statement.</p>

<p>In a few circumstances I use a <strong>70 to 200F/2.8L USM</strong> plus a x2.0MkII EF Extender. Of the <strong><em>three</em></strong> 70 to 200/2.8L lenses that Canon has made the <strong>EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS USM</strong> is the worst and the <strong>EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM</strong> is the best for this combination and especially when the lens is used wide open or near to wide open. So in this case there was an appreciable difference and that difference was one of the criteria which lead me NOT to buy the <strong>EF 70 to 200 F/2.8L IS USM</strong> in the first instance. (However I did not sell my EF 70 to 200F/2.8 USM to buy an EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII USM)</p>

<p>When I was buying a EF 24 to 70, I use both the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM and the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L MkII USM (and also Tamron's newer similar lens). As per Mark’s comment l also found a variation of IQ between the two Canon Lenses, especially at F/2.8~F/3.5, the MkII version being better. However I chose to buy an EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM. One of the reasons I chose the older lens was because of the difference in the Lens Hood design; and this different design can make a difference in IQ between the two lenses in specific shooting situations, albeit not for the majority of many Photographers' uses though.</p>

<p>I note all of my lens comparisons were using a 5D and 5D MkII.</p>

<p>Re your comment on your 24 to 70/2.8 and using it at F/2.8 for indoor sport, I am not sure that I would put my money into a new lens just because of that situation. Before I did buy a new 24 to 70MkII I would be looking at the return on the investment (I assume this is a business): I doubt that your sales will go up significantly or that you can demand an increased price because of that new lens, but I can see that a 7D to 7D MkII replacement would make the working day easier, especially in the ISO choices in situ and in the Post Production.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Make sure that you're getting the most out of your zoom lenses by using Digital Lens Optimization to correct for softness, geometric distortion, CA, etc. at every focal length and every aperture, with and without TCs and no matter which body you use. Digital Photo Professional has a DLO module, as does LR and DxO Optics Pro. DLO will take all the lenses that you've listed up a notch or two. </p>

<p>I own the 7D, 7D MkII and 5D MkIII. For wedding, I'd use the 5D3 as my primary body. The high-ISO performance is better with the 7D2 than with the 7D, but the 5D3 pulls ahead markedly from ISO 1600 and up. </p>

<p>As for your original question, going from the 7D to the 7D2 is going to be a larger improvement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it doesn't appear that photoshop or lightroom currently supports 7d MkII raw files</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This isn't correct.<br>

<br>

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/11/lightroom-5-7-now-available.html</p>

<p>Pretty sure Adobe has their free DNG converter for 7d2 files.</p>

<p>I'm using DPP to convert from Raw to TIFF and then I finish processing in DxO. DPP is slow, but good. It'll be only a matter of weeks before all the major software supports the 7D2 Raw files.</p>

<p>If you've been most disappointed with the 24-70/2.8's IQ, then the 24-70/2.8 II is a logical upgrade. While I've loved my 24-70/2.8 for years, it does require maintenance on a fairly regular basis to keep it's imagery looking good.</p>

<p>The 24-70/2.8 II is by all reputes a much more vigorous and durable lens, and it's IQ is second to none - anywhere. It even outperforms many primes within its focal range. Frankly, given the likely condition of your 24-70/2.8L I suspect you'll see tangible improvement immediately, whereas with either of the other 2 (7D vs 7D2, and 70-200/2.8 IS vs II), you will have to look much harder to find a noticeable improvement in image quality.</p>

Time to parrot "Ye olde ruels of photography.": The camera is just a light tight box

between the lens and the film/sensor.

 

 

Buy a fast prime for your telephoto subjects, maybe? Keep the camera unless there are things you want to do the existing camera cannot.

<p>excellent guys thanks! i'm leaning towards the 7D MkII for the higher iso's and improved autofocusing.</p>