Ef 200-400 1.4 vs 70-200 2.8 mk2 cropped or with 2x tele, or crop sensor body?

[LovePhotography]

I want the ultimate set up for nighttime athletics (etc.)
Currently have a D6 and 70-200 2.8 mk2 and then just crop like heck in DxO9

Options:
1. Buy a 200-400 with 1.4 tele (but it weighs as much as a gallon of milk, is expensive and then miss shots when the ball comes to this side of the field)
2. Add the 2x tele mk3 but lose some f-stop and sharpness and also lose the close shots
3. Buy a crop sensor body or use the T5i or EOS M I already have with the 70-200 and use the Canon 6D with Sigma 24-105 Art lens.

Will a good crop sensor (like on the 70D) have just as much sharpness and resolution as the full sized sensor on the 6D, or do you lose resolution because the lens can't handle the resolution, or the sensor isn't as good as the 6D even though they have managed to squeeze just as many pixels on the APS-C as on the full-sized 6D sensor?

Here's what I'm talking about.. The winning goal in overtime the other night (Baylor vs Rice) from about 60 yards away, after being cropped in DxO9. Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

I want the best, but don't want to spend $11k if I will have just as many challengess as I've got now.

You think the price of the 200-400 1.4 will continue to drop?

 

[LovePhotography]

Here's that shot right out of the camera before being cropped in Dxo9... Well, I can't, file too large. (

Really want an excuse to buy the 200-400 1.4 but what if I miss just as many shots as I do now because it's so freaking big and heavy or can't zoom wide? But I'm a sharpness and resolution nut, and a "If you buy the best you only cry once" believer. Then again, $11k is a hell of a lot of mula for a freaking camera lens! Got kids to put through college and need a new roof on the office...

Wondering if I should buy back my ef 35-350L f/3.5-5.6 that I sold a few months ago. Selling that may have been a mistake.

 

[LovePhotography]

I guess one big question is:
Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?

 

[Jim Saunders]

There is no replacement for the 200-400 for that range; The 70-200 is brilliant by itself but doesn't go well with a 2X - I've tried. What about a 300 f/4 or a 400 f/5.6 and 5D3? Or a Sigma 120-300? Either way you'd get some more reach without giving up all your money.

To answer your latest question, I'd put the 70-200 on a crop body before I try it with the extender.

Jim

 

[LovePhotography]

Thanks!
I wonder if the 200-400 is just too freaking much lens for anything than a dedicated trip to the Yukon to shoot polar bears or something.
I wonder if I buy is it going to be just too damn cumbersome to take to a game...
Have you ever used a monster lens?

 

[candc]

I would wait til the 7dii comes out, Avoid the 2x converters. The thing about them is that you have to stop down one stop and then your at f/8 the 1.4xiii will work really well with your 70-200 and you can shoot f/4. I have the sigma 120-300 sport. On a crop body it gets you the equivelant of 192- 480 and its 2.8. It works great with the canon 1.4xiii.

 

[timmy_650]

If you are shooting sports have you thought about upgrading to the 5D mark III. I would get a 5D mIII and the 100-400mm or the 300mm f4 is.
The 200-400 is wonderful but is it worth the price? If you got the money, maybe.

 

[Halfrack]

Night = expensive ...

There is no way around it, it's expensive glass or crazy high ISO, as stadiums really aren't illuminated for photography. If you're getting paid, then you know you need to invest in the gear. If you're not getting paid, consider what you are getting as 'best possible under the circumstances'. The 1.4x mk3 may give you the tidbit more reach you need, but you may get that from a crop body as well - it sounds like you're doing this with just one camera, which really doesn't allow the full range of options. An option is to leave your 6D with a 70-200, and pick up a used 1D mk4 and pair it with a 70-200 (with the option of adding a 1.4x tele on top of that).

Even a used v1 of the 400/2.8 may be the best tool for you if you're always shooing across a soccer field - it all depends on what you're shooting and whom you are shooting for.

 

[Skulker]

While you're ordering the 200-400 you might as well order the 1Dx. :

 

[seattlebirdman]

Let's say your budget was the price of the 200-400 w 1.4. For the amount you could alternatively get a 300 f2.8 II plus a 1D4 plus a 24-70 II. You could have the 300 on the 1d4 and use the 70-200 on the 6D and have the 24-70 for wider needs.

I think the second option would get you more keepers and would also give you other shooting options for non sports stuff too.

 

[Lawliet]

Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?

The big question is: which one will get the focus better - otherwise its a pointless exercise.
That's where a 70D, or whatever will be available past the upcoming tradeshow, has an advantage over the TC.
Use the full capabilities of the AF sensor and avoid the mandatory slowdown of the lens drive.
Also with high ISO - you can stay two stops lower with the crop camera, that compensates for the lower noise levels of a FF camera.

 

[Claret-Flyer]

Hi i'd forget the 200-400, The 70-200 is great lens but shoot it at 2.8 you need to isolate the subject to get a great shot and shot from next to the goal about the edge of the 6 yard box is my favourite, know want a shot of the back of goal scorers head. I my experience you can only shot one end of game at once.

If your shooting football, I'd find a second hand 400mm 2.8 with IS or even a 300 2.8, there are some coming on the market because the mark2 is far lighter and for nature shouter's that really makes a difference as they generally have to carry for miles for football you can general get the lens pitch side in it's case and use it as a seat with the lens on mono pod, you photo will look better from just being sat down. Get a camera that focuses properly the 6d has a shock AF system, 5D mark 3 or ideally a 1Dx the AF is stunning is just about possible to shout action with and 85 1.2 mark2 but with 70-200 the hit rate is over 95% and 12 frames a second is need some times if these and incident . I've tried using a 120-300 pervious generation sigma but the AF wasn't quick enough, the current one appears to of improved but i've not tested it.

I started taking non league football 15 plus years ago, I used to get some great results from a Nikon F4s 80-200 2.8 and F5 with an old nikon 300 2.8 af so as the game you've shot in the photo does appear to have averting boards you got to stay behind. I'd get a a second hand 300 2.8 and better camera ideally a 1Dx and focus on the action in and around the 18 yard box. I've got a friend with a 1d4 and the AF is not a patch on the 1DX or 5d 3

 

[rs]

I guess one big question is:
Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?

Not quite a 6D or a 70D, but a 21MP FF (1Ds3) and an 18MP crop (60D), both with the lens and TC you requested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[hendrik-sg]

Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

may i ask you, why you stop down a 2.8 lens to 6.3 and use ISO 12800 to compensate. you could have used ISO <3000 at f=2.8? at ISO 12800 you have a lot of loss in details even with a 6d, use the len wider open at less ISO would give you better quality technically.

If you want to shoot stopped down to 5.6 or less (to have more DOF for example or to be less critical with focusing, why not use a 100-400 lens for even more versatility in focal lengh? Maybe use some of your budget for a 5D3, which has much better autofocus. you 6D you can use as a 2nd cam with a normal zoom, to get wider shots.

 

[FEBS]

Here's what I'm talking about.. The winning goal in overtime the other night (Baylor vs Rice) from about 60 yards away, after being cropped in DxO9. Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

You think the price of the 200-400 1.4 will continue to drop?

The settings you used for this shot were indeed not the most appropriate. I would use iso 6400, aperture f/2.8 but would increase the shutter speed to 1/800. A shutter speed of only 1/320 is not sufficient to get tack sharp images for football. Be aware that you would need AFMA for that combination to.

Personal I would on my 1Dx start with shutter speed 1/1000, aperture 2.8, auto-iso and EC of +1/3stop.

A 200-400 lens would give you no better photo in this case as you already loose 1 stop caused by the difference in max aperture. I regular take photo's of sports. However, even that every one says the 7D is a great camera for sports, I must admit that my keeper rate over there is low. With the 5D3 and the 1Dx the keeper rate is above 90%. This is all caused by the more advanced AF system for those 2 cameras. I never used a 6D myself, but when I look to several specs and remarks of this camera, I can guarantee you that your sports photos might only get a big jump in keeper rate by buying a 5D3, 1Dx or the 7D2 (if the rumors are correct for the AF system). This with the right technique might increase the quality of your sport photos.

Don't start thinking about adding a 2x extender. The 2x version III is marvelous on several big whites like 300 2.8 mkii, however on the 70-200 2.8 mkii, the result is not that great. However you can use the 1.4x extender.

We will see soon a new 100-400 mkII based on the rumors. This combined with the 7D2 might be a real winner for the hobby sport photographer. I would just wait a few weeks until all the announcement for Photokina 2014 are done.

I'm sure the 200-400 will drop in price, and for sure if there will be a new 100-400. Looking at Nikon, they have already several years a 200-400. Now, after the new introduction of the 80-400, a lot of people do even let this lens at home because of the high quality of the 80-400. If Canon brings a new 100-400. It will be real good. So, the 100-400, will place some commercial push on the price of the 200-400, and I'm quite sure, that the price of the 200-400 will further drop in that case.

I would not buy a 200-400 1.4x for placing on the 6D. I rather would buy then the new 7D2 which will give you already more reach for your 70-200 2.8ii. If reach would be not sufficient, then you might add a extender 1.4x or looking to the 100-400 (mkii) of Canon or perhaps the Sigma 120-300 2.8 or a Canon 300 2.8 mk ii.

If nighttime is that important then I would advice the 1Dx body. That combined with the 70-200 2.8 ii are the max for sports in dark conditions, of if you need more range then the 300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I want the ultimate set up for nighttime athletics (etc.)
Currently have a D6 and 70-200 2.8 mk2 and then just crop like heck in DxO9

Options:
1. Buy a 200-400 with 1.4 tele (but it weighs as much as a gallon of milk, is expensive and then miss shots when the ball comes to this side of the field)
2. Add the 2x tele mk3 but lose some f-stop and sharpness and also lose the close shots
3. Buy a crop sensor body or use the T5i or EOS M I already have with the 70-200 and use the Canon 6D with Sigma 24-105 Art lens.

Will a good crop sensor (like on the 70D) have just as much sharpness and resolution as the full sized sensor on the 6D, or do you lose resolution because the lens can't handle the resolution, or the sensor isn't as good as the 6D even though they have managed to squeeze just as many pixels on the APS-C as on the full-sized 6D sensor?

Here's what I'm talking about.. The winning goal in overtime the other night (Baylor vs Rice) from about 60 yards away, after being cropped in DxO9. Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

I want the best, but don't want to spend $11k if I will have just as many challengess as I've got now.

You think the price of the 200-400 1.4 will continue to drop?

The ultimate setup for low light sports is a D1X and 400mm f/2.8. the 200-400 is good for daytime use.

None of the options you descripe approach a ultimate setup. A zoom isn't always necessary, but having enough light to turn up the shutter speed to at least 1/1000 sec is optimal to get sharp images of moving players.

 

[LovePhotography]

Shot with 6D and ef 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 at f/6.3 1/320 ISO 12800. (Yes, I know f/6.3 was a poor choice, should have gone with f/4.5, my bad).

may i ask you, why you stop down a 2.8 lens to 6.3 and use ISO 12800 to compensate. you could have used ISO <3000 at f=2.8? at ISO 12800 you have a lot of loss in details even with a 6d, use the len wider open at less ISO would give you better quality technically.

If you want to shoot stopped down to 5.6 or less (to have more DOF for example or to be less critical with focusing, why not use a 100-400 lens for even more versatility in focal lengh? Maybe use some of your budget for a 5D3, which has much better autofocus. you 6D you can use as a 2nd cam with a normal zoom, to get wider shots.

Main reason was I had my head up my butt. Got to the game only for the 2nd half, was in a hurry and set it up like I used to set up my beloved ef 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 for maximum sharpness. Honestly, if I'd kept that lens, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I sold it for a great price because it wasn't the greatest walking around lens because it was push/pull zoom and was like an elephant tusk for walking around. Replaced it for walking around with a Sigma 24-105 Art lens, which I think was a good decision, but the 35-350 would have been perfect for the other night. Ce La Vie...

I try to shoot aperture priority at 5.6 since I like sharp, and 6.3 for added DOF where the soccer players aren't all lined up side by side.
I don't think I'd like the current 100-400 based on it's bench testing. I bought a 2x tele the other day used on fleabay, but haven't got it yet. Sounds like I might as well just turn right around and sell it.
I'm probably gonna by a 7D mk2 or a 70D (if the price drops as a result) instead of a teleconvertor, although a 7D mk2 with the 70-200 plus a 1.4 convertor might make a helluva setup, too... (that would take the 70-200 out to 448mm)
Instead of the 200-400 buy the 7D2 with the above set up and use the 6D with the Sigma 24-105 f4. That would get me 24-105 and 112 (7D with 70-200 without the 1.4 tele) up to 448 (with the 1.4 TC). That's a staggering 18.67 zoom range with only changing out the teleconvertor.... Hmmm. And, I'd have have $8000 to spend on something else....
But, I wouldn't have the longest lens in the stadium (to make up for other shortcomings....).

 

[FEBS]

But, I wouldn't have the longest lens in the stadium (to make up for other shortcomings....).

But the longest lens would ask, no even beg, for a 1Dx or a 5D3 or maybe a 7D2 (dependent on the coming spec of course) to get most out of that beast of a lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Isn't it usual for the American football pros to use a 400/2.8 and 70-200 combo? Considering football (aka soccer) has approximately the same field size, wouldn't that work better?

 

[FEBS]

Isn't it usual for the American football pros to use a 400/2.8 and 70-200 combo? Considering football (aka soccer) has approximately the same field size, wouldn't that work better?

Yes that's fully correct. This is indeed the most used combination until a year ago. Then several sport shooters did find the quality and the flexibility of the 200-400 1.4x that high that there is really a change now. There are several photographers, depending on the place next to the field, that only use this 200-400 instead of a combo with the 70-200. I think (not counted or any statistics, but just from looking at the games) that during the last World Championship in Brazil almost, from Canon side, the 200-400 gets close to 50%. It's a real game changer that lens.