Sport Photography: Targeting 400mm preferably with a zoom range

[scotty512]

hi

i recently took some shots of a humming bird with a 70-200 L II lens and a 2x extender on a 5D MkIII - i thought they came out pretty well to be honest, i understand that they arent pinpoint crisp, whether that was my newness at the camera or the limitations of the extender im not sure but I can happily send you examples?

cheers
scott

[HarryWintergreen]

Again people, myself included, express their wish for a decent 400mm solution offered by Canon. I wished desperately Canon would listen carefully. So, I keep hoping for an upgrade of the 100-400 in the medium price range.

[jcns]

I was in a similar situation as you.
I decided against 70-200 plus extender after reviewing this site.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml
I am very happy with my 100-400.  But I will eventually get a 70-200 2.8 IS.

[jcns]

hi

i recently took some shots of a humming bird with a 70-200 L II lens and a 2x extender on a 5D MkIII - i thought they came out pretty well to be honest, i understand that they arent pinpoint crisp, whether that was my newness at the camera or the limitations of the extender im not sure but I can happily send you examples?

cheers
scott

look at the last 2 pictures on this page and you'll see what the extender does to image quality.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[Renato]

Please do NOT ignore the Sigma 120-300/2.8 + 1.4 adaptor. As far as image quality goes, it's absolutely your best bet. You get a constant f4 and 420mm on the long end. With a 7D that's a 269-672mm equivalent at a constant f4. It costs a bit more and weighs more, but it's way better than anything Canon offers in a 400mm zoom range.

Do you use canon or Kenko TC. 
Have you used 2x?

Can you post a 100% crop of sigma with 1.4x?

[scotty512]

look at the last 2 pictures on this page and you'll see what the extender does to image quality.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

thanks I get it now !

[kirispupis]

In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 II are about the same.  They are also similar in terms of AF.

If you're getting paid for this and are on a budget, I would recommend the 400/5.6.  I honestly have no experience with it - though I do own its sister lens the 300/4.  I would expect it to be much quicker than the first two in terms of AF.

For sports shots AF speed will be your primary concern.  If you can, the best option would obviously be to rent a 400/2.8.

Note that I have noticed that on the 5D3 my 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III does seem to AF faster.  I would still not call it a speed demon, but I did manage to get this shot with it - http://500px.com/photo/6268179

[TrumpetPower!]

Again people, myself included, express their wish for a decent 400mm solution offered by Canon. I wished desperately Canon would listen carefully. So, I keep hoping for an upgrade of the 100-400 in the medium price range.

To be fair, Canon has the most awesomest 400mm solution of them all, in the form of the newest 400 f/2.8. And the other 400 f/2.8s are all pretty darned nifty, as well.

Of course, if you want long, fast, light, and cheap, you'll never be satisfied. But they've got the long, fast, and not-quite-so-absurdly-heavy market all to themselves. Everything else anybody offers will be a compromise of some sort...it might be lighter, but it won't be as fast and the IQ won't be as good, though it'll probably be cheaper (unless they go the DO route). Or, it'll be as fast and lighter and cheaper, but not as long...and they'll call it the 300 f/2.8. You get the idea.

b&