# 70-200 f/2.8 with T3i or 70-200 f/4 with 7d II



## mattbpics (Nov 16, 2014)

I currently own a T3i and want to photograph my son at his wrestling meets. I know the f/2.8 will work with the T3i. However, would the f/4 allow me to still upgrade to the 7dII? Will the improved focusing and iso quality allow the f/4 to function well inside of a gym? I know that the f/2.8 will create a nicer background but I am willing to make some compromise with this. Thanks.


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 16, 2014)

Hi, IMO if your mainly wanting to take photographs of your son inside gyms for wrestling meets or say anything indoors from children running around playing, opening Christmas presents or any other sports indoors I'd definitely at take the 70-200 2.8 zoom. if you're going to use flash to freeze the motion the f4 will work. Gyms are much darker/dimmer than you think and with the 2.8 you're getting twice as much light as the f4 would allow. That's really going to be priceless in getting cleaner photos. Yes you can get much nicer backgrounds (better bokeh) with the 2.8 but for low light it's going to allow you to use much faster shutter speeds with a lower ISO to freeze the action of the wrestling resulting in a cleaner photos (less noise) compared to the f4. The f4 lens is a great lens for shooting outdoors when you have plenty of light, using a flash or shooting from a tripod in low light shooting landscapes for a example. Both those lenses will work just fine on your t3i. If your wanting to upgrade there's know question the 70d and 7dii will out preform the t3i but the t3i is a very good camera and more than capable of getting the shots you want. If your on a budget the tamron 70-200 2.8 has very good reviews and has a 100.00 rebate right now. That lens is quite a bit cheaper than the canon version and I'd say 90 to 95% as good as the canon. If a prime lens would work for you the canon 85 1.8 or the 135L 2.0 or the 200L 2.8 are all good options. I hope that helps and enjoy shooting your son!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

If you can swing the price, a good combo would be the 7D2 + 70-200 f/2.8 + Lightroom.

If you can't swing the 7D2, get a 70D. Regardless of the camera, shoot RAW and then use LR to tweak in post.

Depending on how sharp you want the images, you'll need to shoot at least 400+ shutter speed and the ISO will likely need to be 3200+ with the aperture at 2.8. The 7D2 will help a great deal with the flicker of the gym lights and it's better with high ISO quality. But if you have to save money somewhere, get the 70D instead of the 7D2. Don't skimp on the lens. No camera will save you if you have a slow lens. Sure, you could manage with f/4 but the images will either be grainy, soft or lacking color detail depending on how you try to compensate with your settings.


----------



## nate7520 (Nov 16, 2014)

IMHO get better glass first, and then upgrade your camera. I agree with Ryan that especially for indoor the 2.8 lens is going to make a huge difference. I just upgraded from a T2i to a 7DII but only after I had plenty of fast glass. Sure the 7DII has better high iso performance, probably nearly 1 stop, and 10fps and the nice 65point auto focus system will help in capturing action, but I think it's better to have nice glass with an entry level body. Also, if you are just learning, being stuck with a low fps camera will teach you how to capture the moment rather than just motor driving. both the f/4L and f/2.8L are compatible with any of the current range of DSLRs from Canon


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 16, 2014)

The 7DII improves at least a stop over the T3i, so yes, you will be able to use the f/4 zoom in place of T3i-f/2.8. 
Of course, the AF will be much better, the lens is easier to use, etc. etc.
However, I agree with RustyTheGeek- since you don't need the exceptional AF of 7DII for wrestling, the 70D will be an ideal compromise where you can get better ISO sensitivity that the T3i, much better AF, and still get the benefits of f/2.8. Remember, the sensitive center AF focus isn't as good (even on a 7DII) with f/4 as it is with f/2.8 (I believe the center AF point precision varies directly with the aperture up to f/2.8, so it is twice more precise with the faster lens).


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

nate7520 said:


> Also, if you are just learning, being stuck with a low fps camera will teach you how to capture the moment rather than just motor driving.



This is a good point as well. No offense intended but as cameras get better and better, I think photographers get worse and worse. I don't mean this happens on purpose or necc results in bad images, I just mean that the photographer is robbed of the crucial experience of having to think harder and develop good habits and techniques that are required when the equipment can't compensate. We all rise to the level required of us and much less is required if the equipment lowers the bar. When the going gets tough, sometimes good technique and experience is what saves us.

For instance, I think all DSLR photographers that have never shot with older manual film cameras that only had a basic light meter in them to help set the manual settings have missed out on some great experience. Now these days, shooting with an older DSLR like a 30D, 40D or 5DClassic will still force someone to develop better skills to overcome the sensor limits, esp in low light.

I am guessing that the OP has likely learned a lot using a T3i and a slow lens to shoot indoor sports. He will no doubt appreciate the new technology of the 70D or 7D2 after having shot images with the older tech.


----------



## Gary W. (Nov 16, 2014)

Hey all,

If you are looking at the ƒ4 IS version, might I suggest, for the SAME cost, the Tamron 70-200 VC model (A009). It is about the same for both lenses and I saw $100 rebate on the Tamron! That lens, coupled with the 7D MarkII, would make an excellent combination!

Gary W.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2014)

I'd suggest that you consider the f/4 lens and a Canon 6D. You will gain about 2 stops stop high ISO, and the FF images do look better. The 6D is often found on sale for around $1400 so its a affordable entry level FF camera built much like a T3i, but with Wi-Fi and GPS which some really like.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 16, 2014)

Gary W. said:


> Hey all,
> 
> If you are looking at the ƒ4 IS version, might I suggest, for the SAME cost, the Tamron 70-200 VC model (A009). It is about the same for both lenses and I saw $100 rebate on the Tamron! That lens, coupled with the 7D MarkII, would make an excellent combination!
> 
> Gary W.



+1


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 16, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Gary W. said:
> 
> 
> > Hey all,
> ...



Do you all (recommending it) actually own the Tamron 70-200 VC? I heard that the AF isn't as accurate as the Canon lenses. Personally, I am not a big fan of third party lenses since I think Canon copies are always far better (except the Sigma 50A, and no I am including Zeiss in this at all)- but to invest >>1K on a lens with low resale value will need all quality assurance I can get for the long haul. I am curious to hear about first hand experiences.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 16, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> nate7520 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you are just learning, being stuck with a low fps camera will teach you how to capture the moment rather than just motor driving.
> ...




You know, I used to think this way earlier- but now I feel it is silly to handicap oneself to just learn something. If someone is passionate about learning what needs to be learned, they find opportunities. There's nothing useful that a modern dSLR isn't good for learning. I use a 5Dc which works fine in most situations, but there are numerous situations that I appreciate having my 5DIII around. 

In this specific case, you can always set the AF drive to one shot or low continuous if you don't want to gun it at 10 fps. And people mostly do that, too. I don't think having an 8fps 7D ever made me fire off at landscapes in 'spray and pray style'. Choose the best tool you can afford. Of course, in this case the lens is a bigger priority, so I think the 70D is a reasonable compromise if that is acceptable to the OP.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > Gary W. said:
> ...



I do own its little brother, the 24-70 and have used it for sports and the AF worked just fine. Bryan over at TDP as well as Matt Granger confirmed that the AF is reliable. I would never claim that third party AF is better than Canon lens AF, but I'm saying it works well.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 16, 2014)

mattbpics said:


> I currently own a T3i and want to photograph my son at his wrestling meets. I know the f/2.8 will work with the T3i. However, would the f/4 allow me to still upgrade to the 7dII? Will the improved focusing and iso quality allow the f/4 to function well inside of a gym? I know that the f/2.8 will create a nicer background but I am willing to make some compromise with this. Thanks.



Not the easiest. decision to make!

IMO a fast camera always helps for moving subjects. Fast means fast response esp. the shutter release. I would prefer the 7 D ii with an Image stabilized f/4 tele zoom -- or alternatively the f/2 100mm lens. 

Another Point: The anti flicker feature might help to get more light on the sensor for indoor sports ...

The lighter lens might be much more comfortable to handle if you like to have your camera in your right hand to be ready to shoot.


----------



## AJ (Nov 16, 2014)

I recommend against a f/4 zoom for indoor work. It is simply too slow.

Are you sure 70-200 is the correct range? How close can you get to the ring? Maybe a prime such as 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 or 100/2 is a better choice. Primes are inexpensive and offer more than a stop improvement over f/2.8 zooms. Since most of the action takes place in the center of a wrestling ring, and as a result the focusing distance won't vary much, I would think that a prime (or two) may very well be a workable solution. 

As for focusing, it is my experience that low f-stop lenses focus better in low (artificial) light than slow lenses. This is a larger factor than the lens manufacturer in my experience.


----------



## mattbpics (Nov 18, 2014)

Wow! This forum gave some thoughtful and helpful responses. Really impressive and well appreciated. I will be taking a serious look at the 100 f/2. This should get me close enough to the action in the gym and it sounds like it's a great lens. Again, thanks for all the great responses.


----------

