# New lens vs new body?



## ducatiman1967 (Apr 15, 2013)

Hello folks, recently my wife and I have begun to explore the wonderful world of nature and bird photography. It's brought us closer together and we really enjoy this genre of photography.
But here is where we find ourselves at a fork in the road,  currently I'm using a 5DIII paired with a EF 400 f5.6 prime and my wife is using a 60D along with a 70-200 f2.8 IS mark 1 and occasionally the 1.4 TC. 
So my question is would she be better served by getting a new body like a 6D or wait for the new 70D or the newer mark II version of the 70-200 lens? 
I think for nature and birding the crop sensor would have the advantage with reach. And I realize you can't go wrong with better glass, but would the 70-200 f2.8 IS II be that much better on the 60D vs the mark 1 lens? 
Sorry for rambling and thanks in advance,
Rico


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 15, 2013)

400mm seems to be roughly the sweet spot for birders (give or take).  But with the 60D body (crop frame), a 200mm lens provides what you would see with a 320mm lens.  Add a 1.4x tele and she's at 448mm... just a tiny bit more telephoto in her frame than what you get with the 400mm on a full-frame body -- but with an f/2.8 lens and a 1.4x, she's at f/4 and you're at f/5.6 (of course your camera completely blows her's away in the ISO performance and focusing system.)

But this is why the question confuses me... it's not like she should need a longer lens.  The 60D has a 9 point AF with all cross-type points.  The 70-200mm mk II is better than the mk I... but it's not _that_
 much better.  

Here's the MTF curve for the Mk I and Mk II at the 200mm focal length end ... side by side (linked from the Canon website):

Mk I 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





     Mk II 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




You can see that the Mk II is better... but nothing dramatic.  And of course the 1.4x is going to degrade that quality a little so this isn't factoring that in.  I own the Mk I myself.  The Mk II didn't exist when I bought my lens.  If I were buying them again today, I'd probably go with the II... but as I already own the I, I've had very little interest in offloading it to upgrade to the II because I don't think the difference is large enough to justify the purchase (there's a pile of other gear I'd rather have first.)

If she went to a 6D body, then she'd lose the crop-factor and, even with a 1.4x on the lens, the birds might be a little small and she might prefer the EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS ... OR ... for _only_ $10,000 more she could have the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II.


----------



## ducatiman1967 (Apr 16, 2013)

Thanks for the reply T, I do agree with everything you've say. But I notice the mk 1 is soft wide open and @ 200mm, now I'm wondering if I should send the 60D, lens and 1.4TC to have adjusted? 
We love the 60D just wish it had in body MFA like the 7D, that's why we contemplated getting a new body (70D) when launched. 
We're heading to Point Pelee soon for some birding and nature shooting the first weekend in May and plan on renting the 70-200 mk2 and the 100-400mm. 
Hopefully she gets some decent results and we'll stick with the 60D.
Thanks again.


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 16, 2013)

ducatiman1967 said:


> Thanks for the reply T, I do agree with everything you've say. But I notice the mk 1 is soft wide open and @ 200mm, now I'm wondering if I should send the 60D, lens and 1.4TC to have adjusted?
> We love the 60D just wish it had in body MFA like the 7D, that's why we contemplated getting a new body (70D) when launched.
> We're heading to Point Pelee soon for some birding and nature shooting the first weekend in May and plan on renting the 70-200 mk2 and the 100-400mm.
> Hopefully she gets some decent results and we'll stick with the 60D.
> Thanks again.



Yeah, that can be frustrating.  See:  LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths

It was a major gripe when they released the 60D and it lacked focus adjustment like the 50D had (and the 7D has).  Some speculated that Canon deliberately crippled it because when the 60D existed, there was no 7D nor anything equivalent to it.... and they may have worried that there wasn't enough differentiation between a 60D and a 7D to justify a reason for people to buy the 7D.  Consequently they changed the magnesium alloy body back to a polycarbonate body and deleted the focus adjustment feature.  

I have a 60Da (which is the special astrophotography version of the 60D -- which is about 3x more sensitive to reds.)  For astrophotography I want a "light" camera... so the "plastic" is welcome (anything I can do to reduce weight on the telescope mount helps reduce vibration.  One of the many banes of long-exposure imaging.)  Likewise, as the "telescope" is the lens and it doesn't auto-focus (we have to use special focusing software.) the lack of focus-adjustment isn't missed.  So the 60Da's loss of features is actually not missed by astro-imagers.

The body and focus adjustment were major complaints when the 60D released... so I'd be surprised if Canon doesn't redress that when they come out with the 70D.  Not being an industry-insider, I can only speculate.  We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 16, 2013)

What about getting her a 7D, or whatever camera will replace it?  

I don't know where the 70D will fall, but it may not be any 'better' than the 7D, especially in terms of quick focus, which might be an advantage for her.


----------



## ducatiman1967 (Apr 29, 2013)

Thanks guys for the replies, well we rented a 70-200 f2.8L IS II to test against our older mark 1 version. I must say it does play nice with her 60D and a nice improvement over the first gen. Is it worth the upgrade ? Is all the hype over the mk2 true? It's been called a bag of primes, so now my wife is liking the mj2


----------



## Overread (Apr 29, 2013)

I owned the 70-200mm f2.8 IS MI and upgraded to the MII and I noticed a difference - I did that primarily because with the original lens I could use it with a 1.4TC and it would perform well, but with a 2*TC the performance suffered a lot (I perhaps used it 3 or 4 times over time time I owned the lens - it would work but for record shots only). 

The MII makes a jump and whilst the charts shown above show that its not a night and day difference, it is a significant enough jump that the sharpness (esp when paired with a 2*TC ) made a noticeable improvement over the original lens. It went from a record shot only to being very usable. Indeed in side by side tests its generally shown that its just about on par with the 100-400mm lens (the 100-400mm has the edge, but its a very fine edge and after editing its very hard to tell results apart). 

That would mean you could both shoot at 400mm at the same time if you wished - the 400mm prime will beat the zoom, there is no question of that, but you'll still have a good quality at that 400mm (and a stunning 70-200mm lens as well)


----------



## psaltis (Jun 13, 2013)

A while back I contemplated upgrading my series I for the II but could not justify the value (IQ) for the difference in cost.


----------



## Surfwooder (Jun 19, 2013)

I just updated from the 50D, to the 7D.  Mainly just for the frames/second for birding.  I use a Tamron 200-500 or a Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM.  I tried the IS model, and it was just to heavy on the 50D to swing around for BIF, but the non-IS was good on a tripod, with ISO at 800, shutter at 500.  Now with the 7D, I think things will be even better.  The focus speed is astounding vs the 50D, the f/sec will be great.  Although the 7D is heavier, the camera is much more ergo friendly, has a good balanced feel with my long lens attached.  The Canon EF 70-200 with IS felt like it was front heavy, and hard to control fluidly.  I may want to test it again, since the 7D has more weight to the rear.  

B


----------

