Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildl...

  
 
ChipinSD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Hello,

I am looking for advice on the best upgrade path for my camera gear. My primary applications are outdoor sports (baseball and football). I will also be trying my hand at horse racing. I am also into wildlife/landscape photography.

For outdoor sports and wildlife, which combination will yield the better pictures?

1) 70D with the 100-400 Mark II
2) 6D with the 70-300 F4-5.6 L

I currently own the 70D. The other items would be new purchases funded out of pocket and by selling unused gear (like a 300 F4 and 7D body). From what I have read, the 100-400 Mark II is the better lens in terms of IQ while the 6D is better than the 70D in IQ.

In terms of AF, I mostly use the center point for sports and wildlife so I am not too concerned about the 6Ds fewer points. I realize I would be losing out on burst mode with the 6D, but I will still have the 70D if I needed a higher frame rate.

Also, I have never shot FF before. Is it naive to think that I could crop the 6D pictures to gain extra reach to come close to the 70D effective focal length?

Should I be looking at the 7DII instead of the 6D?

Looking forward to your comments.

Chip



Jul 21, 2015 at 04:43 AM
saintiwari
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I thought it should be other way round:
6d+100-400 = 400mm reach
70d+70-300 = 480mm reach



Jul 21, 2015 at 05:42 AM
schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Chip,

Sports shooting is a two part equation. Body wise it's fps and the ability to handle high ISO, IQ is a given regardless. While you can somewhat discount the fps with good anticipation skills, it's when the light leaves the scene that good handling of high ISO allowing continued fast SS becomes very important.

The second part is glass which actually has 2 perspectives to consider, AF speed/light gathering & reach. From the speed/light end, both the lenses you mentioned are fine for daytime shooting, but add the requirements of sports with low light e.g. very early morning, late afternoon, severe/dark cloud cover or night high school field lighting and they will fail. Sports is the realm of f/2.8 glass. It allows good isolation & high SS even at f/4.0 under marginal conditions but when the light leaves high ISO is not enough to provide the SS necessary. The 'reach' end comes into play based upon the specific sport and proximity to the action you want to capture. Your profile indicates you have the 70-200 f/2.8 which is a main staple for sports shooters and is great for near action but not far. Yes one can crop but more than marginal levels diminishes the IQ pretty quickly and it gets even worse if shooting under the lights. This is where things get really expensive. For long reach, fast glass i.e. f/2.8 @300 or 400mm are required. Note: wildlife (and some sports) shooters go even longer!

The alternate, pick your spot and wait for the action to come to you (filling the frame).

To satisfy your sports I would say the 7DII is the better choice. For glass, I would save until you can purchase a good used 300 2.8.

JMTC

Matt



Jul 21, 2015 at 07:45 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


i'd probably take a 7D + 100-400 (v2 if you can) over either of those .

the 70D is very similar to the older 7D but the 7D has a couple of useful features the 70D doesn't have . spot AF is very handy if you need to avoid stuff in the forground like grass or fences.
the 7D may not write as fast as the newer bodies but it still does a very good job (I tried my 1000x in it and it was noticable over my older udma6 400x card)

also Im pretty sure the buffer depth is deeper (which the faster card will also help ) .

just my 2 cents



Jul 21, 2015 at 08:16 AM
DAphoto77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I have a 7DII and 100-400II. I have photographed two large swim meets at Harvard and BU for the past several years. I have always used my trusty fifteen year old 70-200 2.8L lens. This past March I took along my 100-400. The light at Harvard indoor Blodgett pool will accommodate ISO 6400 and still leave room for at least 1/1000 shutter speed although I have gone down to 1/750th when necessary although I prefer faster if I can get it. I never shot any higher with the 70-200 than ISO 3200 but mostly ISO 1600 when I could get it indoors. I decided on the third day at Harvard to try the 100-400 at 5.6 and ISO 6400. I shot that whole day with the 100-400 and even got shots from the far end to the pool that were not possible with the 200 due to distance. All pictures came out well. They needed post processing but the worked on the web and I printed some at 8.5x11 that came out very well. This has changed my thinking about ISO use with the 7D2 and use of the 100-400 indoors. I even got good prints on ISO 12,800 shots I tried. I shot a meet on past Sunday with the 100-400 in good light. What a luxury. My keepers are way up with the 7DII and the 100-400 is quick and gets me sharp surfing shots at distances that were blurry with the old 100-400. I swim in the meets so I shoot from the deck. I have FoCal Pro but have not used it on the 100-400 because I think it so inherently sharp that I don't want to mess with it. When I have time I will check it, maybe.


Jul 21, 2015 at 09:14 AM
David Garcia
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I use the 100-400 ii on my 70D with excellent results. I also use it on my 5D3, but it's too short on a FF for my use... wildlife. However, this combo would be nice for sports in good light.

In my opinion, the 6D is too slow for sports at only 4 FPS. I had one. It was a good camera, but was to slow for fast moving wildlife. If you want a FF, a faster 5D3 would work better.

I also have the 70-300... An excellent lens. However, for sports, it may be too short on a slow 6D.



Jul 21, 2015 at 09:44 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I think it all depends on if your outdoor sports are during the day or at night/twilight and if the latter what is the quality of the light. I shoot for a mid level university and I can't get away with f5.6 even with a 1DX for night games. f2.8-4 is mandatory for less then optimal lit fields. Of course, that is also going to depend on you personal standards for noise and shutter speed.

I would go 7D2 plus 100-400mk2 for daytime sports. That's going to be a tough combo to beat. Much more expensive choices if you want something for night games. Maybe a used 1D3/1D4 and a used 300/2.8 IS I or get a 70-200 2.8 and zoom with your feet. A used Sigma 120-300 2.8 is an option as well. Just depends on your budget.






Jul 21, 2015 at 09:55 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Since you asked: For outdoor sports and wildlife, which combination will yield the better pictures?

1) 70D with the 100-400 Mark II
2) 6D with the 70-300 F4-5.6 L


Unlike some others, I will not suggest a 300 f2.8 or something else not on your budget.

Get the 100-400 II. Since you already have the 70D, give that a combo a try before worrying about any other combo.



Jul 21, 2015 at 10:49 AM
ChipinSD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


saintiwari wrote:
I thought it should be other way round:
6d+100-400 = 400mm reach
70d+70-300 = 480mm reach


You are correct in terms of balancing the reach of the lens. I was looking more at out of pocket cost. I could keep my 70D and spend my $$ on the more expensive 100-400 or I could save some money with the cheaper 70-300 and then upgrade my 7D to a 6D.



Jul 21, 2015 at 02:19 PM
ChipinSD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


schlotz wrote:
... AF speed/light gathering & reach. From the speed/light end, both the lenses you mentioned are fine for daytime shooting, but add the requirements of sports with low light e.g. very early morning, late afternoon, severe/dark cloud cover or night high school field lighting and they will fail. Sports is the realm of f/2.8 glass...


Matt, thanks for all of the insights. One the one hand I have been dreaming of the 300 F2.8. I have never shot with one, but from everything I have seen and read IQ is amazing. For now the $3K+ price tag is a bit out of my reach. I am also concerned that as much as I will like the IQ, I will feel limited by the fixed focal length.

You stress the value of F2.8, I wonder what do you think of going "off brand" with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not sport)? The only non-Canon lens I own is an older Tamron 28-70. This was my first F2.8 zoom. I loved the brightness, but AF seemed noticeably slower on the lens. It was fine for portraits, etc. but not that great for sports. The 70-200 F2.8 blew it away and the Tamron has not been used for a few years.

Any experience with this particular lens? There is a relatively new listing by a local FMer asking around $1,700 including the 1.4x TC. I have no knowledge of Sigma performance when it comes to AF speed. What do you think of this lens and TC paired with my 70D? If funds allowed, how would this be paired with the 7D II?



Jul 21, 2015 at 02:26 PM
ChipinSD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Thank you everyone for your feedback! It appears there is less support for the 6D then the other bodies. I am now leaning towards the 70D and the 100-400 Mark II. A 5DIII is past my budget for this phase.

Would like your opinion on going with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not sport) as a shorter, but faster zoom. Any thoughts on IQ and AF speed/accuracy with this lens vs. the 100-400 II? How reliable/consistent are these lenses? If I was going to buy a used one, how should I test it and what should I look out for?



Jul 21, 2015 at 02:31 PM
schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


ChipinSD wrote:
Matt, thanks for all of the insights. One the one hand I have been dreaming of the 300 F2.8. I have never shot with one, but from everything I have seen and read IQ is amazing. For now the $3K+ price tag is a bit out of my reach. I am also concerned that as much as I will like the IQ, I will feel limited by the fixed focal length.

You stress the value of F2.8, I wonder what do you think of going "off brand" with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not sport)? The only non-Canon lens I own
...Show more

Chip, it depends on who you talk to regarding Sigmas. When the OS version (before the sport) first came out I called Roger Cicala over at lensrentals and he hooked me up to rent one. First one came and it had a bad AF motor. It went back and he right away sent out another. I really wanted to like this lens but this one seemed to only truly focus within a certain range which was no go for my soccer work. These problems may have been part of the shake down of the newer model, don't know. Since then don't seem to recall reading about further issues but I haven't gone back to try them either. If you can find a good copy they are something to seriously consider. Some reviews of the OS ver indicated its AF speed was close but not equal to Canon's 300 2.8. Speaking of which, you are correct if that's all you are going to have it can certainly be limiting. Got to apologize a tad here, my 300 2.8 suggestion comes from shooting sports for many years with a two body rig.

If your source is local go try the sigma out, but not during the noon hours. You want to see how it performs nearer the edges of daylight. Setup the test parameters and shoot them. Go back and review the results to determine if the lens and body gave you what was expected. If it does, go for it. As far as the 70D goes, sorry I've never shot with it. IMO, the 7D2 makes a better match with the sigma for sports.

Matt



Jul 21, 2015 at 04:54 PM
ChipinSD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Hi Matt,

As always, thanks for the feedback. From what I hear, the 300 F2.8 is unbelievable in focus speed. When you say the Sig is almost as good as the 300 F2.8, would you know how it compares to the two L lenses I am considering (70-300 and 100-400 II)?

Just learned the local seller sold his Sigma. I asked him for some info on the lens to learn how he used it and liked it (since he has nothing to lose as it is sold).

Assuming I will be using a 1 body rig most of the time, does this change your thoughts on the question of lenses? Would you keep the lenses I have and go for the 7DII?



Jul 21, 2015 at 05:01 PM
Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I know a 300 f2.8 prime gets tempting, great focus speed, good subject isolation, excellent image quality and lower light ability. I have the Canon and use it with the 7D II, 7D and 1D III.

But the new 100-400 II is getting most of the use now. Don't underestimate the convenience of using a flexible zoom. Especially if your main use is outdoor daytime sports with one camera.

As the action quickly gets closer or farther, you'll love having a zoom. I often used a two-camera combo with a shorter prime or zoom on the 2nd camera. I still prefer a one camera solution with a zoom like the new 100-400 II. And that's what I take with me just about everywhere now. Sometimes a 15-85mm in the bag for wider stuff.

The zoom also makes a nice Air Show or Zoo lens, or many other things you might want to shoot. Kind of pricey but I still think it's a good value. A lot of people like it.







Jul 21, 2015 at 07:22 PM
schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


ChipinSD wrote:
Hi Matt,

As always, thanks for the feedback. From what I hear, the 300 F2.8 is unbelievable in focus speed. When you say the Sig is almost as good as the 300 F2.8, would you know how it compares to the two L lenses I am considering (70-300 and 100-400 II)?

Just learned the local seller sold his Sigma. I asked him for some info on the lens to learn how he used it and liked it (since he has nothing to lose as it is sold).

Assuming I will be using a 1 body rig most of the time, does this change
...Show more

What I would use for lenses might not the same for you or others. I'm heavy into soccer and 2.8 glass is an absolute must for me. So is reach which is why I use a two body rig, both 1DX's one with the 400 2.8 and the other the 70-200 2.8. The difficulty is being in a position something like in the middle of a river needing both a boat and a paddle. If the finances only supports one, I personally would save up for glass that would truly meet my needs as a sports shooter. Both the lenses you mentioned are very good lenses but do not cover sports in low light conditions, again JMTC. If money is burning a hole in the pocket and the right glass is out of reach, then maybe the 7D2.

If sports shooting is NOT the dominating venue then a completely different set of requirements should be evaluated.



Jul 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


ChipinSD wrote:
Thank you everyone for your feedback! It appears there is less support for the 6D then the other bodies. I am now leaning towards the 70D and the 100-400 Mark II. A 5DIII is past my budget for this phase.

Would like your opinion on going with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not sport) as a shorter, but faster zoom. Any thoughts on IQ and AF speed/accuracy with this lens vs. the 100-400 II? How reliable/consistent are these lenses? If I was going to buy a used one, how should I test it and what should I look out for?


Just as an FYI, while the AF has improved, the overall IQ of the 7dII and the 70d are nearly identical. Both 20.2 MP APS-C sensors with dual pixel AF. The 7dII body is more rugged, shoots 10 FPS vs. 7, and a host of other improvements (weather sealing, 60p video) but at the end of the day the images between these two camera will be nearly identical. Hell you'd LOSE the articulating LCD if you went with the 7dII. Check the DXOmark scores for both overall sensor and low light performance - it's basically the same exact IQ.

All these people suggesting you "upgrade" to the 7dII when you have a 70d crack me up. That'd be about a $1000 "hit" for no IQ improvement. Plus there's countless threads about AF issues with the 7dII. Good buddy of mine is the biggest die-hard Canon fanboi I know - he bought a 7dII and sold it not that long afterwards.

My vote would be keep the 70d and get the Sigma 150-600 C lens for $1099 new. It's great!



Jul 24, 2015 at 04:46 AM
DAphoto77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


I made a previous post about shooting swimming in this thread. Prior to shooting meets with the 7D2 I used the 70D at earlier meets in the same venues. The 7D2 captures and focuses better substantially increasing my keepers per meet. I have used higher ISO numbers with success up to 12800 producing usable 8.5 x11 prints. I think the 70d is a great camera for less critical uses than mine, however.


Jul 24, 2015 at 08:10 AM
dugaut
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


Great advice here.

100-400II is a significant improvement over the version 1 and is a good combination of reach, quality, AF, and is easily hand holdable; I hate being tethered to a monopod even.

For night time sports, leave it home. As has been mentioned 2.8-4, with f/4 only as a last resort.

One thing I didn't see in these posts unless I missed it is that the 100-400II takes a 1.4III extender better than I expected. You would need at least the 7d2 for AF though since f/5.6 becomes f/8. Maybe only the 1D bodies will focus with it.

I do some wildlife in the summer when the sports season ends and when I first got into wildlife I thought my 400 would be fine. I was wrong on that. I own a 600 now that I often have an extender on.



Jul 24, 2015 at 08:38 AM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


DAphoto77 wrote:
I made a previous post about shooting swimming in this thread. Prior to shooting meets with the 7D2 I used the 70D at earlier meets in the same venues. The 7D2 captures and focuses better substantially increasing my keepers per meet. I have used higher ISO numbers with success up to 12800 producing usable 8.5 x11 prints. I think the 70d is a great camera for less critical uses than mine, however.


If focus is attained - do you think there really is any difference between the 7dII and 70d from say, ISO 100 to 1600? IQ wise? Dynamic range wise? I highly doubt there is. Now granted a good working AF system is very important and I'm not trying to undermine the 7dII - I just think if the OP is spending money he's not going to see much of a difference in the final output going from a 70d to a 7dII...




Jul 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM
DAphoto77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 70D with 100-400 Mark II vs 6D with 70-300 F4-5.6 L for Sports and Wildlife


If focus is attained - do you think there really is any difference between the 7dII and 70d from say, ISO 100 to 1600? IQ wise? Dynamic range wise? I highly doubt there is. Now granted a good working AF system is very important and I'm not trying to undermine the 7dII - I just think if the OP is spending money he's not going to see much of a difference in the final output going from a 70d to a 7dII...

I think, and only my opinion, that the 7d2 is maybe a stop better with noise. I don't do movie so don't know about that. Ten frames per second is better by a couple of frames. I find that helpful on starts.



Jul 24, 2015 at 12:28 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.