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.
70-200 f/2.8L IS II & TC 1.4III vs 300mm f/4 L IS
- Thread starter jaayres20
- Start date
- Status
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
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
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.
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 said:
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Alrik89 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.Alrik89 said:
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?
Upvote
0
Sorry, I got a bit side tracked there.Rienzphotoz said:
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.
Upvote
0
Alrik89 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.rs said:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I am kinda interested in 300mm f4 IS USM, while owning a 70-200L f2.8 IS USM Mark II.
If 300mm f4 has "worse" AF than 70-200L f2.8 with 1.4xII, then the AF of 300mm f4 really has to be sluggish. Are you telling me that from your own experience or you just so happen to read it somewhere?
I tried the 1.4xII (yes, version 2) with my 70D and 70-200L f2.8 and while I was satisfied with the IQ, i was not nearly satisfied with the AF. On a super bright sunny day, photographing football, first division. To my knowledge, Mark III extenders don't offer any improvement to AF over Mark II extenders on nonsupertele lenses.neuroanatomist said:
If 300mm f4 has "worse" AF than 70-200L f2.8 with 1.4xII, then the AF of 300mm f4 really has to be sluggish. Are you telling me that from your own experience or you just so happen to read it somewhere?
Upvote
0
I think that your camera body is the limitation more than the lens. On a 7D, 5DIII or 1D X, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and 1.4x II or III work extremely well with AI Servo. It's a little slower to lock on than the bar lens (no extender), but tracks very well. The 2x is not a great choice for sports, though. The 300 f/4 IS has better AF because it's a bare lens, but again the camera body is going to be the limiting factor shooting something like football.
Upvote
0
I think it's been proven, that the 70D's AF is an improvement over the 7D's, when it comes to focus lock and focus tracking. So why would 70D be the problem, if 7D isn't?
Upvote
0
I have heard but not personally tested that the v3 converter should have a significant improvement in AF speed over the v2. Maybe someone can confirm this by personal experience.whothafunk said:
I also cannot believe, that the 70D should be the limiting factor.
I have experience with 5D3 and v3 converter and here the AF speed slows down a little, but not so much that it would limit me in normal situations (not high speed or BIF tracking).
Upvote
0
I have used both 70-200 IS (f/2.8 II & 4) with the Mk II and III extenders and have found no difference in terms of AF. I have only used the Mk III with the Mk II 300 f/2.8 so I can't comment on the differences there, though.Maximilian said:
I guess what I was saying is that from my experience, the 70-200 (f/4 IS & f/2.8 IS II) both work very well with the Mk II & III extenders and if you're not happy with the AF performance, it's likely the camera body (or your AF settings - sorry I didn't mention that earlier). It's one of my favorite combos and I've had great results with it AF and otherwise with bodies ranging from the XSi/450D to the 1D X, so I found your post surprising. I don't believe the 70D is any better than the 7D in terms of AI Servo, but to be fair, I haven't used one. The 5DIII and 1D X bodies are noticeably better, but at quite a price, of course.
What AF settings did you use? Maybe that's the culprit.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
