70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3

[bluenoser1993]

I currently use a 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xIII with my 7D when the reach is required.  This is maybe 10% of the time I use that lens at most and is why I went that route.  When I do need the equivalent 640mm, it is for shooting my 4 children all involved in water sports (human powered, so focus speed not as much of an issue).  With that range I still need to crop some times, but as I'm a hobbiest the long range superteles are not justified, and stand out to my wife as obviously being very expensive.  Once the kids are at a more competitive level I may rent once in a while for fun. 

I would love to upgrade to a 5DIII this summer, but the 600mm focal length gets very expensive in FF, with the exception of the 300 f4 when I already have the 2xIII.  Virtually everyone on here seems to say once you go 5DIII or 1DX the 7D collects dust.  I could not justify keeping it and would sell it and the only EF-S lens, the 10-22.

Now lots of people love the 300 f4, but it gets bashed when discussing using it with 2x.  However, I think the bashing isn't completely justified, it is being compared to more expensive lenses.  When I compare the ISO 12233 against the Sigma 120-300 2.8 that is 3 times the price, the Sigma is only comparable in the center with or without converters, for example.

On the ISO 12233 charts the 24-105 can be compared between a 60D and FF, the lenses in question can not.  Obviously it is not as sharp on a 60D/7D sensor.

So the question is, even though the 70-200 combination will get the best image to the image circle, will capturing that image on the 7D sensor degrade it enough to be about equal to the 300 f4 combination image captured on the 5DIII sensor.  Equal image at almost equal focal distance, and hence still relatively equal cropping ability.

I'm hoping to benifit from the obvious upgrade for 90% of use without loosing quality at 600 mm with the suggested option.

WOW, that took way more words than I thought it would! 

[Menace]

Get the 5d III in the summer but keep the 7d if you can. See if the two bodies work for you.

I sold my 7d but miss the reach so will be getting another one soon.

My 2 cents worth

[bycostello]

i think you answered your own question...  the crop sensor works best for you...

[AlanF]

This topic has been discussed many times in other threads: in practice, the better IQ of the 5D III compensates for the loss of crop relative to the 7D so you won't notice any loss of reach.  If you are photographing the moon, the 7D will bring out better detail on the black and white image.  But, for wild life and most normal subjects, you won't see any less detail with the 5D III. I have kept the 7D as a very good back up for the 5D III.

[wickidwombat]

if you just want a sensor and lens combo iq comparison i can whip one up for you
using the EOS-M though essentially the same sensor

iso 100?

[GMCPhotographics]

The IQ difference between these two rigs is fairly neglidgeable. It's not something you will see a "night and day" diffence. Sure, one might be sharper or have a tad more contrast. Sure on might have less halo or blooming....but in real world use, the difference is slight. With the 5DIII you will be able to shoot at far higher iso values and still have less noise than on your 7D, which is the only fault I can point at the 7D. Other than that it's a fine camera...but one I couldn't really shoot higher than iso 400. The per pixel sharpness and micro contrast of the 5DIII are far superior, as are the colour rendition and comparitively more depth of field control. But with the two lesn options you have listed, there will be little difference IQ wise. You should stop down at least a stop with any lens when using a 2x TC to get the results nice and sharp (unless you are using a 400mm f2.8 L IS!).
The biggest difference between the two rigs will be the lack of AF with the 300mm f4 LIS and 2x TC on a 5DIII. That's quite a problem with such a long lens.
The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS is one of the most dissapointing lenses which I've tried recently. optically, it was excellent. By that, I mean it was as good as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 LIS mk II. But in real world use I found it to be cumbersome and diffircult to use. The OS system is very unrefined and quite clunky. It's AF was slightly erratic with faster moving objects and isn't in the Canon league. It was fast but imprecise. But my real dissapointment was it's alarming focal length drop as the focus was pulled in to min focus distance. Lets face it, to melt backgrounds one needs to shoot at close distances. By my calculations, at MFD this lens is no more than 240mm in focal length and that's not a lot more than a 70-200. Pop a 1.4x on it (it should be a 420mm f4) and I wasn't seeing much more focal lenght over a 300mm f4...which is a lot smaller and lighter. Pop a 2x converter and I wasn't seeing much more than a 400mm which was a really big dissapointment.
So my advice with this lens is that be aware that it's not what it claimes and I personally was better off with a 70-200 f2.8 LIS mkII.

[bluenoser1993]

I have read plenty of comparisons, and agree that the 5DIII cropped with the same lens combination will net you the same or similar IQ as the 7D uncropped.  However, as I mentioned that when I use the 70-200 + 2X I often have to crop to get the close up image I'm looking for (zooming with feet isn't an option as the target is on a lake).  So I figure cropping the 5DIII is starting to reach the limits when needing to crop the crop, so to speak.  Hence the desire for an economical way to have similar focal length that may have reduced IQ ability, but collected on a better sensor so hopefully similar IQ on the final outcome.

I don't see myself keeping the 7D, as it's a hobby.  Additionaly I find I don't seek reasons to use the wide end of the 10-22 and normally use it between 13-15 and often up to 20.  So on 5D the 24 end of the 24-105 I have will keep me happy for a while.  So selling the 7D, 10-22, plus buying the 5D as a kit and re-selling the 24-105 as I have one already puts a real good dent in the purchase price.  I could even make the move at the end of summer and paddling season, hence wouldn't even need to buy the 300 f4 for another year.

Wicki, if you have the gear to compare the EOSM+70-200+2X vs 5DIII+300 f4+2x that would be awsome and iso 100 would be great as I know it will get lop sided when the iso goes up.  It is very nice of you to offer your time to a stranger!   

[wickidwombat]

didn't have time last night only got home late but i'll give it a shot tonight

the 300 f4L IS is pretty good actually and stopped down a stop improves the IQ sharpness quite a bit
this does mean shooting at f11 though

and i'm pretty sure the 5Dmk3 april update will enable f8 AF so i'm looking forward to that because the 300 f4L +2xTC is a nice combo on my 1Dmk3

[agierke]

one thing that hasn't been discussed is that if you go with the 300mm for reach on the 5d3 then you lose the ability to zoom.

that leads me to ask for more specifics towards whats water sports are you shooting in particular and what kind of access can you get during these events? are you stuck in the stands with the rest of the parents or can you get down to ground level and close to the field of play?

i shot swimming and diving a few times (all indoors) but had access to anywhere i wanted to go...even right up to the edge of the pool if i wanted. never had a problem with reach on the 70-200 under those circumstances. the bigger issue was not being able to use flash and trying to find enough light to get a decent shutter speed.

more specifics please...i feel there may be better solutions than to tie your horse to the 300mm cart.

[dhofmann]

The next logical step beyond the 70-200 II + 2x or 300mm f/4 + 1.4x or 100-400, is the 300mm f/2.8 + 2x. But that's over $7k. Or you can wait for the 200-400.

[bluenoser1993]

Agierke, to answer your question, the sport is sprint canoe and kayak.  It is a 1000m course, the main lake in the city that is used has a paved walking path/boardwalk down one side.  I sometimes use a sling bag and bicycle to move around the lake and catch candids during practice, but during racing events the kids are still at an age that requires some assistance to make sure they make it to their event, etc, so I'm more restricted to the club for shooting.  The kids generally are only in 250m and 500m events, the finish line is probably an additional 50 - 75 meters from the shore, and our club is located at the finish end of the lake.

I'm embarassed to attached these pictures, but the paddling group is my wife's Masters team practice.  It is at 200mm + 2x and is almost a 100% crop.  It's a terrible picture, I'm on the wrong side of the lake to use the last of the evening sun, but it was part of a sequence to show the group their progress in training.  I've put it here to demonstrate the kind of range I have to work at some times.

The kids at play is a far better use of the 70-200, and the back ground shows the race course that I'm shooting.  The side to the right is where the boardwalk is, but unfortunately you look into the sun most of the afternoon.  There is access to the other side, but moving locations is a little more difficult as there are some private propperties breaking up the shore. 

EDIT:  I didn't realize the EXIF data wouldn't be included, the second picture is at 80mm for reference.  I was at the edge of the water.

[expatinasia]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, but could this much rumoured 7D Mark II be the answer?

Of course nobody knows what specs it will have, but at least you should have speed over the 5D Mark III and who knows maybe they will throw in new tech like some are suggesting.

[bluenoser1993]

7DII?  Does anyone really think that it would match the 5DIII IQ and iso, plus be faster?  If it did all that it would have to be priced higher.  While 3 fps setting on the 7D is not fast enough for me sometimes, 9 is more than it needs to be (for me).  So I think the speed of 5D will make me happy.  Now if the 7DII could focus at f8 like the 5D soon will, it might be more tempting, as I will never be able to spend the money on the super teles.  But the noise will have to be gone, as that is one thing I really do dislike on my 7D.

[wickidwombat]

well i have done this test
all shot on tripod live view manual focus I took the filters off and shot with 10 sec timer

and i'm blown away there is a pretty big difference the 5Dmk3 with 300f4L wins by a fair margin over the crop with 70-200 i honestly thought it would be closer (bearing in mind this is purely from an IQ perspective)
even just the bare lens without the tc the FF is significantly sharper

if you give me somewhere i can upload all the full raw files i'll send them to you or pm me an email address that can take files over 20mb each
or i can post up some 100% crops here later

 

[wickidwombat]

7DII?  Does anyone really think that it would match the 5DIII IQ and iso, plus be faster? 

Santa Claus
the Easter bunny
the tooth fairy
bigfoot
the lochness monster
and all honest politicians do