70-200 f/2.8L IS II & TC 1.4III vs 300mm f/4 L IS

[jaayres20]

I am a wedding photographer and was looking for a solution for when I am stuck in the back of a long church or the balcony.  Maybe a few bridal portraits ( I love lens compression for portraits ).  I have a 1DX and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  I was contemplating getting the TC 1.4III but made the decision to get the 300mm f/4 L IS.  I hope I made the right decision.

[pwp]

There is no doubting the quality of the 300 f/4is. It's one of Canon's great "sleeper" lenses. Most copies are deliciously sharp wide open. They focus very close at 1.5m; this is semi macro on a 300mm lens. While it takes up just the same amount of room in the bag as a 70-200 f/2.8, the 300 is way lighter at 1.19Kg vs 1.5Kg. It also takes your regular 77mm filters ( vs 300 f/2.8 ). To my continuing regret, I sold my stellar 300 f/4 when I got a 300 f/2.8is. There is a valid place for both lenses in a well rounded kit. I'll probably end up getting another one.

However, your question regards 70-200 f/2.8isII with TCx1.4III vs 300 f/4is. As you are a wedding shooter, I would have suggested the more compact alternative.

Others may post here with real world 70-200 f/2.8isII with TCx1.4III vs 300 f/4is IQ feedback.

-pw

[Alrik89]

You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.

...you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

Impressive...three lies for the price of one! 

I guess you don't realize that while the crop factor applies to aperture, too (in terms of DoF), the lower ISO noise of FF adds more than than the 1.3-stops if you need the deeper DoF, allowing even faster shutter speeds at the same DoF...   

The only thing the OP missed by not getting the 70D was the chance to lose shots from the lesser AF system, slower frame rate, etc. 

[Alrik89]

Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.

...you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

Impressive...three lies for the price of one! 

I guess you don't realize that while the crop factor applies to aperture, too (in terms of DoF), the lower ISO noise of FF adds more than than the 1.3-stops if you need the deeper DoF, allowing even faster shutter speeds at the same DoF...   

The only thing the OP missed by not getting the 70D was the chance to lose shots from the lesser AF system, slower frame rate, etc.

DoF isn't a concern, not in the initial post of the thread opener, nor in my post - so, what are you talking about?

[Rienzphotoz]

Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.

...you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

Impressive...three lies for the price of one! 

Good one!

[neuroanatomist]

DoF isn't a concern, not in the initial post of the thread opener, nor in my post - so, what are you talking about?

When you're comparing sensor formats, DoF is certainly a concern worth mentioning, because it changes in context.

You stated APS-C + f/2.8 offers more speed than FF + f/4, and with current cameras, that's simply not true once you factor in ISO noise, which is 1.5-2 stops lower on FF.  FF means you can get a shallower DoF with a lot less noise than APS-C if you want it (relevant for subject isolation - OP shoots weddings), or if you need the deeper DoF, you can still get it by stopping down, but with only a small noise advantage.  That makes the FF camera the more flexible option.  People who suggest that APS-C is a 'perfect 1.6x TC' are ignoring the noisy elephant in the room.

The OP is talking about shooting in a church.  Typically, that means poor light...it makes no sense to recommend APS-C over FF for that use case. 

[rs]

You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

A 70-200/2.8 on a crop body is still a 70-200/2.8. However, if you want to look at it in 35mm terms, equivalence isn't just something restricted to focal length - it effects equivalent aperture and ISO too. The only part which needs no equivalence when comparing different sensor sizes is shutter speed.

A 70-200 used on a crop camera at 187.5mm, f2.8, ISO 10000 is the equivalent of 300mm, f4.5, ISO 25600 on FF - equivalent in terms of AoV, DoF and S/N ratio (focal length x 1.6, aperture x 1.6, ISO x 1.6^2). And if you use the same shutter speed on both, the exposure will be the same too.

If the 70-200 on crop was really the direct equivalent of FF 112-320/2.8, who'd ever buy a 1D X and 300/2.8 combo? Or use a m43's camera for a so called 140-400/2.8 - if so, what's the point in the big, heavy, expensive and 'slow' 200-400/4? And why not mount a 70-200/2.8 on a Pentax Q for a 5.64x crop, giving what could erroneously be called a 395-1128/2.8 lens? What were Canon doing with the 1200/5.6 when all they needed to do was make tiny sensors or use tiny film instead?

[Rienzphotoz]

You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

A 70-200/2.8 on a crop body is still a 70-200/2.8. However, if you want to look at it in 35mm terms, equivalence isn't just something restricted to focal length - it effects equivalent aperture and ISO too. The only part which needs no equivalence when comparing different sensor sizes is shutter speed.

A 70-200 used on a crop camera at 187.5mm, f2.8, ISO 10000 is the equivalent of 300mm, f4.5, ISO 25600 on FF - equivalent in terms of AoV, DoF and S/N ratio (focal length x 1.6, aperture x 1.6, ISO x 1.6^2). And if you use the same shutter speed on both, the exposure will be the same too.

If the 70-200 on crop was really the direct equivalent of FF 112-320/2.8, who'd ever buy a 1D X and 300/2.8 combo? Or use a m43's camera for a so called 140-400/2.8 - if so, what's the point in the big, heavy, expensive and 'slow' 200-400/4? And why not mount a 70-200/2.8 on a Pentax Q for a 5.64x crop, giving what could erroneously be called a 395-1128/2.8 lens? What were Canon doing with the 1200/5.6 when all they needed to do was make tiny sensors or use tiny film instead?

Hmmm! ... can you repeat the question please!

[rs]

Hmmm! ... can you repeat the question please!

Sorry, I got a bit side tracked there.

I personally use a 1.4x TC (mk II) to complement my 70-200 II - the IQ is so insignificantly worse than the 300/4 that its not worth splitting them:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The main advantage is whenever I'm shooting a wedding the 70-200 is always with me, and the TC is so small and light I don't have to worry about carrying it around - my back/shoulder pain would feel all the worse if I was carrying a 300/4 with me all day and the situation never arose for me to use it. Plus its cheaper, I retain a zoom when its on, and the IS is two stop better.

[Don Haines]

You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

A crop camera for more reach when you are outdoors with lots of good light works

The OP is talking about indoors.... and that usually means poor light, and for poor light FF is the way to go.

I have not used a 300F4, but I can tell you that even on a crop body, the 1.4X teleconverter and a 70-200 play well together. I don't know if the IQ would be better or worse than a 70-200, but the 300F4 would be less flexible.

[Rienzphotoz]

Hmmm! ... can you repeat the question please!

I personally use a 1.4x TC (mk II) to complement my 70-200 II - the IQ is so insignificantly worse than the 300/4 that its not worth splitting them 
the TC is so small and light I don't have to worry about carrying it around
Plus its cheaper, I retain a zoom when its on, and the IS is two stop better.

Good points ... I have been considering getting the TC 1.4x II for quite sometime now, but never made up my mind ... I might just make the plunge.

[jaayres20]

Thank you for all of the input.  Looks like I should have just gotten the 1.4 TC.  I am not interested in a crop camera.  I actually used to have a 7D and thought the color was horrible.  I could never quite match it to my FF cameras which made post processing a wedding a headache. 

[jaayres20]

I guess one good thing about having the 300mm now is that if I ever break my 70-200 during a wedding I have a back up telephoto.  That is the one thing about weddings, you can always use a good backup. 

[BozillaNZ]

70-200 IS II + 1.4x actually give you quite good sharpness and color.

I used to have a 300 f4L (non-IS), which is supposed to be even sharper than the 300 f4 IS, however, after comparing shots of 300 f4 and 70-200 @ 200 f2.8 + 1.4x TC, I sold the 300 f4 without regretting.