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

[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?

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.

That's interesting. So people are finding the lens useful enough to give up the wide end (all of 70-200) of the range as well as a full stop of exposure?
I thought the real use of the 200-400 was in wildlife and distant daylight sports. Good to know that the lens is so versatile. You must be enjoying yours a lot

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I'm not as qualified as some of the sports shooters here (and I'm not a pro, per se) but it sounds like money isn't a problem for you. In my experience shooting sports, events, or anything where I have to shoot things that require mixed FL, I use two bodies. One body with a FL range for up close and another body/lens for the longer reach. There's really no substitute for the speed gained using two bodies. Esp if you need to use a tripod or monopod on the long reach body.

It's up to you how you achieve it but if it was me (with the funds you appear to have and the desire for the ultimate setup), I would have a fast crop body and a fast FF. A 70D (or 7D2) + 5D3 (or 1DX). Then match whichever hyper-expensive lens you prefer to each body. Maybe the 70-200/2.8-II and one of the fast tele-primes? (I'm not experienced with any of the monster whites.)

In the real world where most of us live, spending $10K-$20K all at once just to shoot school/youth sports as a non-pro is pretty amazing. Based on the settings you used in your example I sincerely hope you step up your skills game to match all this gear so you can get the most out of it. There will be a significant learning curve if you buy all this stuff at once!! Also, don't forget that you will need extra batteries (7D2 will be different), faster memory cards, different/bigger bags/belts, tripod/monopod and a better way to carry all this stuff for hours on the sidelines without passing out.

Good luck and please let us know what you decide! It sounds like an amazing upgrade is about to happen!

 

[FEBS]

That's interesting. So people are finding the lens useful enough to give up the wide end (all of 70-200) of the range as well as a full stop of exposure?
I thought the real use of the 200-400 was in wildlife and distant daylight sports. Good to know that the lens is so versatile. You must be enjoying yours a lot

Yes I do enjoy, for sure.

The link below is about a photographer who was already using the 200-400 last year during football final of the Champions League. He is explaining how and why he did use this lens. Those using this lens on a 1Dx do feel that this combo is strong enough to forget the 400 2.8 for instance. No body change, simple and performant solution. f4 doesn't matter that hard, as 1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3. Flexibility of zoom gives the possibility to take for instance 3 different shots within a few seconds (close-up of face, full player, player and surrounding) by only zooming and switching extender in/out.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/nl/content/education/technical/ef200_400mm_f4l_is_usm_extender_1_4x_lens_on_test.do

Another good description of possibilities of this lens by Dan Carr can be found here:
http://shuttermuse.com/canon-200-400-review/

 

[LovePhotography]

I'm not as qualified as some of the sports shooters here (and I'm not a pro, per se) but it sounds like money isn't a problem for you. In my experience shooting sports, events, or anything where I have to shoot things that require mixed FL, I use two bodies. One body with a FL range for up close and another body/lens for the longer reach. There's really no substitute for the speed gained using two bodies. Esp if you need to use a tripod or monopod on the long reach body.

It's up to you how you achieve it but if it was me (with the funds you appear to have and the desire for the ultimate setup), I would have a fast crop body and a fast FF. A 70D (or 7D2) + 5D3 (or 1DX). Then match whichever hyper-expensive lens you prefer to each body. Maybe the 70-200/2.8-II and one of the fast tele-primes? (I'm not experienced with any of the monster whites.)

In the real world where most of us live, spending $10K-$20K all at once just to shoot school/youth sports as a non-pro is pretty amazing. Based on the settings you used in your example I sincerely hope you step up your skills game to match all this gear so you can get the most out of it. There will be a significant learning curve if you buy all this stuff at once!! Also, don't forget that you will need extra batteries (7D2 will be different), faster memory cards, different/bigger bags/belts, tripod/monopod and a better way to carry all this stuff for hours on the sidelines without passing out.

Good luck and please let us know what you decide! It sounds like an amazing upgrade is about to happen!

Aww, money's always an issue, I just choose to spend mine differently than my neighbor's. I don't have cable TV, I cook my meals at home, I'm content driving a pick-up, and I work 70 hours a week. Even if you don't make much, if you live frugally you can get cool stuff. And, even if I do buy this big-ass lens, I figure I can always sell if for $8000, so it really only cost $2k. Some people spend that much a year on cigarettes.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Aww, money's always an issue, I just choose to spend mine differently than my neighbor's. I don't have cable TV, I cook my meals at home, I'm content driving a pick-up, and I work 70 hours a week. Even if you don't make much, if you live frugally you can get cool stuff. And, even if I do buy this big-ass lens, I figure I can always sell if for $8000, so it really only cost $2k. Some people spend that much a year on cigarettes.

I not only agree and relate but I applaud your discipline! Another consideration once you start down the road to top end gear is insurance. Gear gets damaged and stolen so don't get burned! Make sure you are covered. I'm interested to hear what you finally decide!

Edit: Something else to consider before buying a $12K lens... selling it. This is sort of like owning a multi-million dollar home. The market for that home is very small. It can take a long time to sell while trying to find the right buyer. There are very few photographers out there willing to invest in such a lens so who knows if you will have to discount it to sell it? I would suggest buying it used if possible to help offset that possible future selling discount.

 

[rdalrt]

I will throw in my $.02.

On 200-400 vs 400 2.8, a lot depends on where/when you shoot. I shoot a lot of high school football. Around here, that is all at night on some terribly lit fields. For the me choice is simple. The 400 2.8. I am already at ISO 6400/8000 or higher to maintain 1/800-1/1000 shutter speeds on the fields I shoot. Can't afford to give up another stop.

If all I shot was during the daytime, the 200-400 would quite likely have been my choice. Had a chance to play with one for a bit. No doubt it is an outstanding lens. The versatility/convenience/IQ is amazing with the built in 1.4x.

Regardless of which lens you choose, I would strongly recommend setting aside some money for a couple new bodies. If you want to shoot sports, grab some combination of 1d4, 1dx, 5d3 bodies. Two bodies is the usual minimum for sports work. I often use 3 bodies.

Not that you can't do a good job and make nice pictures with 7D's or 70D's, but you stated you wanted the ultimate combo and that is what the 1D bodies are designed for.

I am not an SI staff photog, so take all this for whatever you think it's worth.

In the end it is your decision. The nice thing about high end glass like this, is it holds its value pretty well. So if you change your mind, you could probably swap a 200-400 for 400 2.8 with little difference in $$.

 

[AlanF]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

 

[FEBS]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

Alan,

I have both cameras. I didn't measure it. But when it really comes down to high iso, you will see easily the differences between the 5d3 an the 1dx. This is also not mentioned only by me, but by several people here on CR.

 

[LovePhotography]

If I get a monster white lens, I think I'll put my little EOS M on it (which actually takes some really stellar photos, BTW), and then take a picture of the cameral lens combo. Should be a hoot! )) Something like this but in real life...

 

[sagittariansrock]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

 

[AlanF]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

He doesn't say that the 1DX is half a stop better, he says that Canon is cheating by having the real iso on the 1DX half a stop lower than the reading it is set at, relative to the 5DIII, so you think it is half a stop higher than it really is.

"Consumer warning

My 5D Mark III is about a half-stop faster at any given ISO setting than my 1D X.

In other words, at any given ISO, my 5D Mark III gives the same image with a half-stop less exposure. In other other words, my 5D Mark III actually runs at a half-stop higher ISO than marked, or my 1D X is actually running a half-stop slower than marked, or somewhere in between.

It's common for camera makers to cheat a little here, since Canon needs to make the 1D X look like it has better high ISO performance than the 5D Mark III. In this case, it's stacked the deck a little, since when anyone compares at the same indicated ISOs, the 1D X appear to have a half-stop advantage since it's really only operating at a half-stop less ISO than the 5D Mark III at any given ISO. When comparing images, you won't notice unless you shoot at the same manual exposure, in which case my 1D X is a little darker than my 5D Mark III, or if you get both to match, you'll notice that your 5D Mark III only needed about a half-stop less exposure."

 

[dave99x]

Buy the 200-400 L 4.0 IS USM 1.4 extender if you can afford.

Hi,

there is no other lens like the 200-400 L 4.0 IS USM 1.4 extender on the market.

I own the 70-200 L 2.8 IS II USM, the EF 600 L 4.0 IS II USM and also the 200-400 L 4.0 IS USM 1.4 extender... and some other lenses, but the other lenses are out of focus for this thread ;-)

Al of the three lenses mentioned above have pro & cons and especially the 200-400 has many pro's. Only one contra: the price. But if you can afford it... But i love it. I really love it! I love it very much.

Last week i was shooting 2 hours (handheld the 200-400) on Zurich airport during a work travel.

i am using the EOS 5D III and the EOS 100D (nice combination... challenge is to find the eos 100d attached to the lens). But of course i am waiting for the 7D II.... the two 100d i own are normally experimental for HSS HDR shootings.

 

[CurtL5]

I currently have a 5Dmiii and I shoot a 70-200 2.8 and I use a 1.4x to shoot night sports...

The problem I find is only at night and it rely revolves around light.
Shooting football, the 1.4 REALLY takes me out of the game when it gets to f4 - I find it's actually better quality when I shoot w/o the 1.4 and simply crop more.

My colleague shot a 7D with the same lens and extender setup but his ISO wasn't at the level mine is so I cannot honestly say what the crop sensor impact would be. He now has a 1Dm4 which is somewhat of an in-betweener so it'll be interesting to see what that does.

I really find that an extender soften the shots too much to really get that tack-sharp image I'm looking for at night. I plan to go to a 300/2.8 in the near future as that improves my reach a bit AND keeps me at 2.8 which is critical at night. If I need to go with the 1.4, I still can and I'll be at f4 plus as I understand it, the 1.4 is better with primes.

My (somewhat) useless 2c...

 

[FEBS]

I currently have a 5Dmiii and I shoot a 70-200 2.8 and I use a 1.4x to shoot night sports...

The problem I find is only at night and it rely revolves around light.
Shooting football, the 1.4 REALLY takes me out of the game when it gets to f4 - I find it's actually better quality when I shoot w/o the 1.4 and simply crop more.

My colleague shot a 7D with the same lens and extender setup but his ISO wasn't at the level mine is so I cannot honestly say what the crop sensor impact would be. He now has a 1Dm4 which is somewhat of an in-betweener so it'll be interesting to see what that does.

I really find that an extender soften the shots too much to really get that tack-sharp image I'm looking for at night. I plan to go to a 300/2.8 in the near future as that improves my reach a bit AND keeps me at 2.8 which is critical at night. If I need to go with the 1.4, I still can and I'll be at f4 plus as I understand it, the 1.4 is better with primes.

My (somewhat) useless 2c...

I have had the same experience a time ago. For schooting wide open, And for sure with extenders, the 70-200 will loose its sharpness. I only was able to improve that by doing afma with focal software. However the 2x on this lens has clearly influence. The 300, and if needed with extenders, gives wide open tack sharp pictures if afma is done. The 5d3 can easily handle the 300 with 2x iii out of hand after some practising.

 

[FEBS]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

He doesn't say that the 1DX is half a stop better, he says that Canon is cheating by having the real iso on the 1DX half a stop lower than the reading it is set at, relative to the 5DIII, so you think it is half a stop higher than it really is.

"Consumer warning

My 5D Mark III is about a half-stop faster at any given ISO setting than my 1D X.

In other words, at any given ISO, my 5D Mark III gives the same image with a half-stop less exposure. In other other words, my 5D Mark III actually runs at a half-stop higher ISO than marked, or my 1D X is actually running a half-stop slower than marked, or somewhere in between.

It's common for camera makers to cheat a little here, since Canon needs to make the 1D X look like it has better high ISO performance than the 5D Mark III. In this case, it's stacked the deck a little, since when anyone compares at the same indicated ISOs, the 1D X appear to have a half-stop advantage since it's really only operating at a half-stop less ISO than the 5D Mark III at any given ISO. When comparing images, you won't notice unless you shoot at the same manual exposure, in which case my 1D X is a little darker than my 5D Mark III, or if you get both to match, you'll notice that your 5D Mark III only needed about a half-stop less exposure."

Alan,

The best way to find out if the ISO on a 1dx is much better then on the 5d3 is by using them both. Just as camera makers cheat, it's the same for reviewers who try to explain differences based on poor test and reading manuals but not by using them extensively next to each other.

I read in the mentioned reviews for instance that the AF system of both cameras would be astoundingly the same with the exception of itr. So we forget that the spread of the af points of those 2 cameras is totally different? We forget that the battery voltage of those 2 cameras is different? The itr would be the only difference? But itr only works in af group or af 61 point mode. So even comparing this to the modern systems of nikon would be the same? The same when nikon can only automatically ( no switch off possibility) apply this to all focus point mode.

I'm not the only one on CR that finds the high ISO on the 1dx at least a stop better then the 5d3. I use max 6400 auto ISO on the 5d3, but on the 1dx it's 25600. That's the practical experience I have with both cameras. It's not that I want to say that the 1dx is a much better camera compared to the 5d3. I even use the 5d3 more then the 1dx. I know which camera I take when I want to do a shoot. That's always dependent on the object and my knowledge of the differences of those cameras. But high ISO and superior AF is a big advantage of the 1dx compared to the 5d3. No reviewer can convince me that those to cameras would be the same for this 2 issues. But that's all practical experience with both cameras for using them after a longer period.

Francois

 

[Dylan777]

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.

+1 with Mt Spokane Photography ...wrong camera and wrong lens(except 70-200 f2.8 IS II)

About 6D + 300mm f2.8 IS II if budget is an issue. Keeper might be lower with 6D, however, it nearly what you want "nighttime athletics".

 

[AlanF]

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

He doesn't say that the 1DX is half a stop better, he says that Canon is cheating by having the real iso on the 1DX half a stop lower than the reading it is set at, relative to the 5DIII, so you think it is half a stop higher than it really is.

"Consumer warning

My 5D Mark III is about a half-stop faster at any given ISO setting than my 1D X.

In other words, at any given ISO, my 5D Mark III gives the same image with a half-stop less exposure. In other other words, my 5D Mark III actually runs at a half-stop higher ISO than marked, or my 1D X is actually running a half-stop slower than marked, or somewhere in between.

It's common for camera makers to cheat a little here, since Canon needs to make the 1D X look like it has better high ISO performance than the 5D Mark III. In this case, it's stacked the deck a little, since when anyone compares at the same indicated ISOs, the 1D X appear to have a half-stop advantage since it's really only operating at a half-stop less ISO than the 5D Mark III at any given ISO. When comparing images, you won't notice unless you shoot at the same manual exposure, in which case my 1D X is a little darker than my 5D Mark III, or if you get both to match, you'll notice that your 5D Mark III only needed about a half-stop less exposure."

Alan,

The best way to find out if the ISO on a 1dx is much better then on the 5d3 is by using them both. Just as camera makers cheat, it's the same for reviewers who try to explain differences based on poor test and reading manuals but not by using them extensively next to each other.

I read in the mentioned reviews for instance that the AF system of both cameras would be astoundingly the same with the exception of itr. So we forget that the spread of the af points of those 2 cameras is totally different? We forget that the battery voltage of those 2 cameras is different? The itr would be the only difference? But itr only works in af group or af 61 point mode. So even comparing this to the modern systems of nikon would be the same? The same when nikon can only automatically ( no switch off possibility) apply this to all focus point mode.

I'm not the only one on CR that finds the high ISO on the 1dx at least a stop better then the 5d3. I use max 6400 auto ISO on the 5d3, but on the 1dx it's 25600. That's the practical experience I have with both cameras. It's not that I want to say that the 1dx is a much better camera compared to the 5d3. I even use the 5d3 more then the 1dx. I know which camera I take when I want to do a shoot. That's always dependent on the object and my knowledge of the differences of those cameras. But high ISO and superior AF is a big advantage of the 1dx compared to the 5d3. No reviewer can convince me that those to cameras would be the same for this 2 issues. But that's all practical experience with both cameras for using them after a longer period.

Francois

Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?

 

[FEBS]

Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?

Raw

 

[eml58]

It may just be about budget, how much pain are you prepared to endure for the "right" set up, and the "right set up" is somewhat loaded.

If you can afford the 200-400f/4, it's an amazing Lens, I haven't a single regret purchasing mine.

if you can afford it, hook it up to a 1Dx or a 5DMK III, talk to your Wife/Bank Manager if necessary.

Another option might be, 1DMK IV (I have kept mine, love the 1.3 crop), set it to your 70-200f/2.8 & have a 1.4x MK III Extender for the longer shots, yes it's a bit of messing about setting that 1.4x, but a 1DMK IV 2nd hand will be a reasonably cost effective method of getting you reach & quality.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II works very well with the 1DMK IV and the 1.4x Extender, not too badly with the 2x Extender, not great, but not bad, biggest issue with the extenders is loosing the f stop, if you can live with that, your in clover.

 

[AlanF]

Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?

Raw

I ask questions in order to learn. Having been stimulated by your comments to look at a series of careful reviews, I see that up to iso 3200 there is little difference in practice between the 1D X and 5DIII noise, then the 1 DX begins to pull away, as you intimate. As I am interested in very fine details in plumage etc, I tend to shoot at 640 and max out at 1600 so the difference doesn't really affect me but I can see where it would help some others. Thanks for your help as I have never handled a 1D X and have to rely on others for advice.