# T3i to 7dii or new lens



## mattbpics (Dec 3, 2014)

Thinking about upgrading. I am looking to purchase 85mm f/1.8 and 7dii. This upgrades from a T3i. Or, I can buy the 85mm, a 70-200 f/4, and a tamron 150-600 telephoto. Any thoughts on glass vs. T3i to 7dii for age quality.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 3, 2014)

First question is why are you upgrading?

What can't your current system do and what do you want your next system to do?

If it is the lens that is holding you back, then buy a new lens
If it is the camera that is holding you back, then buy a new camera

If it is YOU that is holding you back, buy some books and get more practice. ;D

We joke about G.A.S. here but it really can be a problem. New gear is not always the answer. Some may opine that it is rarely the answer. 

I upgrade when it is the equipment that is holding me back.. and that just does not happen that much.

Good luck with it.

If I were spending your money, I would buy both a new camera and new lens. ;D ;D


----------



## Coz (Dec 3, 2014)

Ditto what AcutancePhotography said. Unless you need the 7DMkII's superior autofocus tracking abilities and better high ISO performance, I would go with the better glass. 

It also depends on the frequency of your need. If you need better low light performance and only need the real long lens a few times, then buy the new body and rent the lens when you need to.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2014)

Coz said:


> Ditto what AcutancePhotography said. Unless you need the 7DMkII's superior autofocus tracking abilities and better high ISO performance, I would go with the better glass.
> 
> It also depends on the frequency of your need. If you need better low light performance and only need the real long lens a few times, then buy the new body and rent the lens when you need to.


+1


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Coz said:
> 
> 
> > Ditto what AcutancePhotography said.
> ...


+1 ... need to reach more posts :->


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 3, 2014)

Wow, so many +1's. I need to go back and read what I posted. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Wow, so many +1's. I need to go back and read what I posted. ;D


+1 :->


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

+1 - Because I don't want to go against the flow here...

The advice above is great. I would also prefer to upgrade the body and get a new lens. More fun! More toys! 

However, what about the 70D? That is a GREAT mid range body and a good upgrade to the T3i too.

I just purchased a Canon Refurb 70D a few days ago during the Black Friday sales. I'm selling it for $829 if you're interested. Feel free to PM me if you like. http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/pho/4786864945.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 3, 2014)

Its very easy to get caught up in the quest for better gear, and a very good idea to first identify exactly what you need. 

If you want better IQ, a 6D would cost less. If you need the advanced AF, you have the choice of one of the used 1 series cameras, or the 7D MK II.

Users who come from a Rebel tend to be put off by the weight of a prosumer or pro model camera, so don't overlook a 70D, which costs a lot less than a 7D MK II.

I would not recommend buying a wide aperture lens like the 85mm f/1.8 to use with a rebel. The reason is that you will probably want to adjust the autofocus due to the shallow depth of field, but the T3i can't do that. That's where a 70D with that lens would work out better.


----------



## mattbpics (Dec 3, 2014)

I am mostly a macro photographer but will become an occasional sports photographer for my son. I really overlooked the 70D as an option. Would this be enough since I am not spending all my time with action photography? Also, the 70D lets me set some money aside for a possible future lens. Thanks for all the advice so far.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 3, 2014)

I don't doubt that a 7D2 would be a fun upgrade from the T3i. But, given the lens choices that you offer, consider the 70-200 f2.8L II. There will likely be rebates and below $2,000 pricing in the next few weeks. This will give your T3i some new life. 

See where your photography goes with this lens. You may still find a need for the 7D2 down the road if action is your main interest. Or, you may want to drastically up the low light and IQ performance by pairing this lens with a 6D.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 3, 2014)

mattbpics said:


> I am mostly a macro photographer but will become an occasional sports photographer for my son. I really overlooked the 70D as an option. Would this be enough since I am not spending all my time with action photography? Also, the 70D lets me set some money aside for a possible future lens. Thanks for all the advice so far.


The 70D would be a nice body for occasional sports. I used the 60D for this purpose until action photography became a very serious interest. Then I upgraded to the 7D, then the 5D3.

However, I still think you see a bigger bang for your buck with the 70-200 f2.8L II.

Hey, Marsu42, +1 this and you'll get closer to another yellow box


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> Hey, Marsu42, +! this and you'll get closer to another yellow box



+1 - if I wouldn't amalgamate my answers for different posts (see my post history) I'd have at least 2 times the current cound . But actually I find the number a bit embarrassing, it shows how often I read CR.

I'm just wondering when I'll get the 8th box, people with 1000 posts have 7, so do I with 5000+


----------



## Tanispyre (Dec 3, 2014)

Another important question is how worn is your T3i? Are you getting close to the limit on shutter clicks? Has it been dropped a few times. My T2i is starting to show quite a bit of wear, so my next upgrade is probably going to be a body instead of a lens.


----------



## slclick (Dec 3, 2014)

Sounds like you need the 100 2.8 L and a focusing rail/Macro speedlite setup more than a new body or longer glass. You did say Macro.

edit: Ok, you didn't list your current gear besides the body so I could be and am usually wrong on a daily basis, just ask my kids. 

But if not you should consider a dedicated Macro kit. Plus the lens will double as a sweet, super sharp medium tele/portrait-headshot lens.

You can do it 'On the cheap' with a refurb non L 100 2.8 and a ring lite flash for ~$500 or an awesome setup with the L version and a twin flash and a macro tripod with rail for about $1750.


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

If the SLR's fully functioning i'd buy a new lens.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 3, 2014)

dolina said:


> If the SLR's fully functioning i'd buy a new lens.



I agree. Don't think you'll see much (if any) difference in IQ between the older and newer crop cameras. If you don't have a macro lens, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-L) is an excellent lens, and about $350 less than the similar L lens. I used to have one and loved it!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

mattbpics said:


> I am mostly a macro photographer but will become an occasional sports photographer for my son. I really overlooked the 70D as an option. Would this be enough since I am not spending all my time with action photography? Also, the 70D lets me set some money aside for a possible future lens. Thanks for all the advice so far.



I used the 70D for sports myself. It has decent AF and 7 fps. Not to mention the extra reach of a crop sensor. So yes, it is a great mid range sports camera. But it also has advanced features like AFMA, superior Video AF, handy articulating screen and WiFi for remote control, etc. Very versatile! Eventually I will probably buy another one.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 3, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> I don't doubt that a 7D2 would be a fun upgrade from the T3i. But, given the lens choices that you offer, consider the 70-200 f2.8L II. There will likely be rebates and below $2,000 pricing in the next few weeks. This will give your T3i some new life.
> 
> See where your photography goes with this lens. You may still find a need for the 7D2 down the road if action is your main interest. Or, you may want to drastically up the low light and IQ performance by pairing this lens with a 6D.



Call me a contrarian, but it is not THAT much life. Sure the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will work fine on a t3i, but not exactly the best focusing. Better off going F/4 at that point and saving cash. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a t3i is like Snow Tires on a Ferrari... Sure it works, may be better than nothing, but sort of missing the point.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 4, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Call me a contrarian, but it is not THAT much life. Sure the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will work fine on a t3i, but not exactly the best focusing. Better off going F/4 at that point and saving cash. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a t3i is like Snow Tires on a Ferrari... Sure it works, may be better than nothing, but sort of missing the point.



I'm relating to personal experience. I got hooked on the 70-200 f2.8 by using a Mark I verson on my XT and on a friend's T2i during a figure skating ice show lit only by spot lights. I had been using a non-L 70-300 f4-5.6. The f2.8 was critical to getting reasonable shots and a huge improvement over the 70-300. It also improved the focusing performance of my XT. In my case, I upgraded my XT to a 60D then added the 70-200 f2.8 II. Had I owned the T2i, I would have done the lens upgrade first. The T2i/T3i shares the same sensor with the 60D and 7D. This offered the low light performance that I was lacking with the XT. Center-point focusing on the T3i should benefit from the 70-200 f2.8L lens. No question that tracking and buffer won't be as good as the 70D, but for casual sports, it's still workable. 

Since the OP referenced sports shooting with his son, this likely means indoor sports. I would rather shoot with a T3i/70-200 f2.8L II than a 70D/70-200 f4. Of course, I'd rather have both the 70D and the 70-200 f2.8 II.

The OP referenced a need for a 70-200 lens, a fast 85, and some sports with his son. The 70-200 f2.8 II will satisfy these needs. In my opinion, if the OP goes for the body upgrade now and a 4.0 zoom, he will regret the zoom purchase and eventually seek to replace it with the 2.8 Mark II version. If he can't afford both a body upgrade and the 70-200 f2.8L II now, start with the lens and do the body upgrade later. The 70-200 f2.8L II is one of those lenses that can bring out the best of any body.


----------



## slclick (Dec 4, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Call me a contrarian, but it is not THAT much life. Sure the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will work fine on a t3i, but not exactly the best focusing. Better off going F/4 at that point and saving cash. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a t3i is like Snow Tires on a Ferrari... Sure it works, may be better than nothing, but sort of missing the point.
> ...



Funny, I read it as shooting sports with his son meant outdoors! (American Football, Football, lacrosse, marbles)


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 4, 2014)

slclick said:


> Funny, I read it as shooting sports with his son meant outdoors! (American Football, Football, lacrosse, marbles)


Funny, indeed. I keep forgetting the world-wide audience of this site. In Minnesota, kid sports seem to be more prevalent during the school year. It may start with cross country and outdoor soccer, but then migrates to football under the lights and then basketball. Lots of basketball. In fact, if looking for a sport for a younger kid, basketball is often the most prevalent option with numerous city rec leagues. There are opportunities for soccer and cross country, but "American" football typically means under the lights. Indoor soccer is also popular and then there's hockey, figure skating, and volleyball. Even though my own son plays baseball in the summer, most of the sports that I shoot is indoors for the school.

Marbles??


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm just wondering when I'll get the 8th box, people with 1000 posts have 7, so do I with 5000+


 
I count 9 bars, ask the admin to remove one if you want 8.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Dec 4, 2014)

I am very happy with my 70d and tamron 70-200 f2.8 SP for not much more than the canon 70-200 mkii alone.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering when I'll get the 8th box, people with 1000 posts have 7, so do I with 5000+
> ...


Wow. Mt. Spokane is now wrapping the yellow boxes on a second line. Thanks for contribution to CR!


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 4, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Call me a contrarian, but it is not THAT much life. Sure the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will work fine on a t3i, but not exactly the best focusing. Better off going F/4 at that point and saving cash. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a t3i is like Snow Tires on a Ferrari... Sure it works, may be better than nothing, but sort of missing the point.
> ...



I am relating to personal experience as well. I had a t2i and at that time owned both a 70-200 F/4 (both IS and non-IS) and used an 70-200 F/2.8 IS II which I later got down the line AFTER I got my 5D MK III.

You can shoot sports with ANY camera, better glass helps, but... for sake of comparison...

a T3i with a 70-200 F/2.8 IS II vs a 7D MK II with a 70-200 F/4 IS (heck maybe even non-IS)

In short you lose a stop on the glass but gain not only 64 more cross-type AF points, but far more sophisticated tracking. 

I noticed a huge difference in the 5D MK II vs the 5D MK III for shooting sports (specifically 30+ MPH cyclist for example) and drool at what the 7D MK II appears to be capable off. 

For what ever you give up on glass speed, you get better ISO performance with the 7D MK II... not to mention almost TRIPLE the FPS. 

You want 2.8 and IS, you can get into the Sigma, which is a step down for sure from the Canon, but the Sigma 70-200 on a 7D MK II vs a 70-200 F/2.8 IS II on a t3i, I am betting on the 7D MK II to capture more in focus and have a much higher keeper rate, and for not that much more. 

While the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II can "bring out the best" in any body, there is not that high of a bar on a t3i. 

And you want to capture sports? 

65 cross type vs 1 - Which will nail the focus?
Which camera will track better?
Which camera has better ISO / Noise? I would give the 7D MK II 2 stops on the t3i 

You are shooting action in a gym... with the 7D MK II you can fire off a burst of 10 FPS vs 3.7 FPS - Any bets which has a high chance of getting keepers or THE shot? 

Better sensor. Better AF (tracking). 3X FPS. Better IQ. 65-Cross-Type AF points vs 1????? Better High ISO 

I love my 5D MK III and I love my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. It is probably my most used config followed by 24-70 F/2.8 II... But it is not a sports combo. I shoot sports with it, but it does miss.

Just an opinion but the 7D MK II with moderate glass even an F/4 or not IS is going to get more images and more keepers than the t3i.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 4, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Wow, so many +1's. I need to go back and read what I posted. ;D


+1 again,
We all just simply agree with your reasoning


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering when I'll get the 8th box, people with 1000 posts have 7, so do I with 5000+
> ...



Oh, they just changed the algorithm or did a manual update - now you look like this :->


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 4, 2014)

+1 to everything above... 

I would pick up some new glass unless it really is the camera holding you back... i had the best glass i could get for my old 450D, but i was still lacking for what i wanted to shoot... so i upgraded my body (5DIII)... however, since i mainly used the EFS 17-55, i also needed to up-grade glass too... the basic answer is upgrade both, but start with glass!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 4, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> We all just simply agree with your reasoning



Agreement? On CR? Whaaaat? That's crazy talk.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 4, 2014)

If you'll go (even just a little) into sports, the T3i AF would not sufficient for me.
7DII is probably overkill, as you described what you photograph, I'd go for the 70D. 
That leaves (at recent prices in the US) 2200$ (7DII+85) - 1000$ (70D) = 1200$. I'd spend them on the 70-200/4 IS.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 4, 2014)

Maui5150, we may be wrestling with how to apply our personal experiences with our perception of the OP's need.

I see the OP's sports need to be minimal now, maybe picking up as his son grows up. I also perceive his gear acquisition as a longer path than this single purchase.

If the sports in question are outdoor where light isn't an issue, then a 7D2 with a 70-200 f4 would be the way to go -- for today. down the road, an ideal setup would be the 7D2 with the 70-200 f2.8L II. Or, if sports never becomes a priority, maybe a 6D with the 70-200 f2.8L II. But, what path to take to get there?

The 7D2 offers maybe a stop of the light advantage over the T3i with respect to noise (for RAW images). It offers more focus points, but for getting shots of a specific athlete, you will still be using a single point for focusing. The advantage that the 7D2 offers is that you can add a bunch of expansion points around that single point and you can move this group around the frame to improve composition. Additionally, the 7D2 offers 10 FPS vs. 3.7 FPS of the T3i. Finally, the 7D2 offers a burst rate of 24 RAW files over 6 RAW files of the T3i.

When indoor sports is the subject, we need to look at the full impact of low light, beyond noise.

The 7D2's noise reduction may offset the loss of a stop with the 70-200 f4 vs. the f2.8 II. But, what are the ramifications of focus lock under low light with a 4.0 lens vs. 2.8 lens when using the 2.8 sensitive focus points? I suspect that the OP will see an improvement in his center-point focusing performance with the 2.8 lens over the 4.0 lens. Plus, the 2.8 Mark II lens reportedly has the best focusing performance of all the Canon 70-200 zooms. I'm not suggesting that the T3i with the 70-200 2.8 will outperform the 7D2 with the 70-200 4.0. But, in low light, the 2.8 lens will improve the performance of the T3i while the 4.0 will limit the potential of the 7D2. I have noticed focus misses with my 24-105 4.0 on both my 7D and my 5D3 that I don't experience with 2.8 lenses (17-55, 24-70, or 70-200). 

Keep in mind, we are considering kids in sports. We aren't, yet, talking about a lot of speed. I see no issue with center-point focusing for these events. I've spent many years shooting center point with an XT. I also don't see the 3.7 FPS as an inhibiting factor. Burst rate has its place, but ought not be a crutch for poor timing. If anything, limiting one to a slower rate may improve one's skill set in timing the shot. 

I shoot most of my sports with a 5D3 and still use the 7D for outdoor events. There are times when I use the burst mode, but I think it can be over-rated. Again, this depends upon the sport and the level of play. In my experience, even the 8 FPS can be too slow to be a reliable alternative to timing the shot. For example, try shooting a kid throwing a free throw in basketball and getting that shot where the ball is only inches away from the hands after the throw. If you start bursting as the shooter begins the throw, you will miss it. You'll get a shot before the throw followed by one with the ball leaving the frame. A lot can happen in 1/8 of a second. The best chance of getting this shot is by improving your timing. Of course, the 10 FPS of the 7D2 or the 12 FPS of the 1Dx, just might be fast enough to offset poor timing. But, it isn't hard to get this shot with a T3i.

Again, we are talking about young kid's sports here. When I shoot younger figure skaters for the club, my 60D (with a focus system similar to the T3i) does a fine job. It is with the older, faster athletes that I see a distinct benefit of the 7D and 5D3 focus systems during AI SERVO. Better athletes need better focus systems to track them. Younger athletes, not so much. I believe that the biggest hindrance that the T3i presents with kid sports would be the buffer. You do have to be conscience of it filling up. If a skater is preparing for a jump, don't fill the buffer with shots of the approach. Save some room for capturing the jump itself.

Add to this the OP's inclusion of the faster 85 (which is a fine lens) and I still think that the 70-200 f2.8L II offers more bang for the buck now. When light and fast action aren't part of the picture, the T3i sensor can challenge the performance of the 7D2 sensor. The 70-200 2.8 will give the OP greater control of DOF and a greater opportunity for fantastic portraits and candids.

I still recommend the 70D, the 7D2, or a full frame body down the road. If the fast action (which excludes the young ones) isn't an immediate need, why not wait until the price of the 7D2 drops and benefit now from the good deals on the 70-200 2.8? Then determine which body will best serve his need. 

I certainly have a bias here. If the OP really gets into photography, I do think the 70-200 f2.8L II will at some point have a place in his bag. I'm just not sure which body is best. I can't advise getting lenses that would become obsolete by the 2.8 zoom. Further, it would be a shame to make a cumulative investment in lenses now that would inhibit a future purchase of this 2.8 zoom. I think this lens is THAT good and will help him define his direction in photography. It did with me. It was a big help to my then immediate need in low light sports with a crop body. Now it's an even better lens on my 5D3 -- together better in low light, more useful focal range, greater DOF control, and sharper on FF than crop.

Ultimately, I don't know if my assumptions and perceptions accurately reflect the OP's current interest and need. But, I do hope that offering the differing experiences and views in this thread will help him weed out those that don't apply and come to a conclusion that best serve's his current need and his future acquisition of gear.


----------

