And now what!?

[adrian_l]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am a family photog shooting field hockey and sailing.<br>

I own a Canon 60D and using mainly a canon 100-400.<br>

Now I want to improve my equipment and I don't know what to do first: <br>

a) Change my camera to a Canon 7D or<br>

b) Buy a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS<br>

I want to improve the sharpness and also the possibility to take photos on cloudy days without increasing ISO values.<br>

Any comment will be appreciated,<br>

Adrian</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Lens first.</p>

<p>60D is a great camera - no need to upgrade yet... get the lens. Get used to it - then see if you're being limited by the body. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I'd get the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, unless you're planning on a lot of indoor shooting. Your 60D is excellent at ISO 800, so don't sell it short. The f/4 is just as sharp and considerably lighter than the f/2.8, IMHO.</p>

<p>OTOH, the 8-fps of the 7D is fantastic for field hockey and your 100-400mm is a super lens with great flexibility. The 100-400mm is also an excellent first wildlife lens. If the field hockey is a big part of your shooting and/or you might be interested in some wildlife and bird shooting, then the 7D makes sense. A 70-200mm f/2.8 is only going to give you a little more speed. The 100-400mm IQ issues are mainly at the long end and not really enough to worry about, particularly if you crop you shots a little.</p>

<p>So, it'll depends on your priorities. If fps isn't big to you, then get a lens and wait for the 7D MkII as your next body, a year or two from now.</p>

[adrian_l]

<p>Hi guys! <br>

Thanks lot for your comments.<br>

I have to analyze my options.<br>

Adrian</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to improve the sharpness and <strong>also the possibility to take photos on cloudy days without increasing ISO values.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would suggest you look at adding a lens before buying a 7D to replace the 60D.</p>

<p>The only way to keep the Tv and not increase the ISO as the EV falls, is to have a faster lens so to meet your criteria an F/2.8 zoom is the best option: But will the reach to FL = 200mm be a limitation?</p>

<p>Whether <strong><em>specifically for those two Sports</em></strong> the IS is a requirement is debatable as for mostly all shots the Tv will be fast enough to eliminate an perceptible Camera Shake Blur: HOWEVER, it is very likely you will use the lens for other tasks, so the IS will most likely be the better choice.</p>

<p>Using the 70 to 200/2.8L Lenses in the field, I found that the EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII USM performs the best of the three F/2.8’s when it is coupled with both the Extenders EF MkIII; but the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM performs the worst of the three when it is coupled with the Extenders MkII; the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L USM when coupled with the Extenders EF MkII and this combination I have used in lieu of carrying the heavier 300 or 400 lenses.</p>

<p>So one option you might consider is the flexibility of either the EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L USM or the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM and the appropriate extender(s).<br /> (I have not used the MkIII extenders with the older lenses – so I have no comment on those combinations).</p>

<p>I shoot Field Hockey and using an APS-C, the 70 to 200 is nice – but a 400 (or 300) on another camera, as well as the 70 to 200 is a good option; as Field Hockey moves very fast, and the length of the Field really requires at least 400mm reach on an APS-C; and running the sideline is really not an option.</p>

<p>I find the x1.4 on the 70 to 200 makes a very handy “in between ONE lens solution” for Field Hockey – especially if the focus is to make images <strong><em>of the attack of one team only</em></strong> – that FL range on APS-C is quite nice working at about the corner post or a little in front of it – 5mtrs outside the field’s boundary; being able to move to the opposite corner, to accommodate the changes of the corner, from which the Short Corners are to taken, assists greatly.</p>

<p>I disagree that the 70 to 200 will only give a bit more speed, obviously one stop faster than the F/4 version of the zoom: but the OP’s question asks for better shooting in low light compared the 100 to 400 already using, and essentially any F/2.8 lens will be (about) two stops faster than the 100 to 400: thus for example, at any given ISO when the clouds come in, allow the shot to be made at Tv = 1/800s, rather than 1/200s and for Field Hockey that difference is substantial.</p>

<p>For sailing – I guess you are shooting from a Motor Launch or similar to consider the 7o to 200 – so again I would suggest the F/2.8 variants of the 70 to 200 lenses.</p>

<p>And also if you are shooting from land and require extra reach consider the Extenders EF (if you are selling the 100 to 400).</p>

<p>Also a very nice light weight and moderately inexpensive tow lens and one extender kit is a 70 to 200/2.8 plus the 300/4 plus the x1.4 Extender: For sport, this kit is enhanced with a second body – two 60D would work very well in this kit and be a modest cost or work towards a 7D and keep the 60D.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[adrian_l]

<p>Thank you very much William!!<br>

Finally I bought a 20-700 F2.8 IS II lens and I am very very happy with it.<br>

Here there are some shoots http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianlasso/sets/72157629613768526/<br>

I agree 100% with you about your comments on the field hockey shooting. With my Canon 100-400 I always stand in the length of the field, but with the 70-200 I have to stay near the corner. <br>

I will consider your suggestion on having a Extender 1.4x III to more flexibility.<br>

Again thank you very much for your very complete post.<br>

Adrian</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I bought a 20-700 F2.8 IS II lens and I am very very happy with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good! – marvellous lens. Thanks for the link - I see you are enjoying your new lens.<br /> You might already use one, but a Monopod is useful.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>You should also seriously consider if the x2.0mkIII fits into your plan.<br /> I don’t have any hockey shots at hand using the 70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII and the x2.0 MkIII as I only used the lens for a day and not at an Hockey Field.<br /> But I have many shots using the non IS lens and the x2.0 MkII extender – and as I mentioned, with your IS MkII lens and the MkIII extenders, you will get better than these examples which were shot a few years ago using an EOS 20D:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15618414-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br /> <strong>20D 70-200/2.8L + x2.0MkII F/8 @ 1/1250s @ ISO800; FL = 280mm; Full Frame Crop</strong><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15618415-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br /> <strong>Detail</strong></p>

<p>***</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15618412-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br /> <strong>20D 70-200/2.8L + x2.0MkII F/14 @ 1/2000s @ ISO1600; FL = 400mm Full Crop</strong><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15618413-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br>

<strong>Detail</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

[adrian_l]

<p>Wow! Great image quality! I love the sharpness of the first one. I hope I can take similar shoots!<br>

I'm impressed with extender's performance. Very good!<br>

Thank you very much!</p>

<p>Adrian (from Argentina)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes - the second one is at FL = 400mm where there is a litlle image quality loss and also the second image is at ISO1600 which meant a little noise reduction was used which makes it a little less sharp in appearance by comparison to the first image. <br>

Also the 20D is inferior to the 60D you have.<br>

Have fun. Nice chatting.</p>

<p>I'll look out for new Hockey pictures on your link and I will be following the Hockey at the Olympics . . .I guess you will be also.</p>

<p>WW</p>