Kit consolidation.

<p>I want to pare down some of my kit and am thinking of the following:<br>

I have a Sigma 50-500 which is great for reach but a bit bulky and a bit slow to AF.<br>

A canon 200mm f2.8 L II which I love for everything except versatility.<br>

A Canon 135 f2.8 SF, which is getting very little use.<br>

I am thinking that I should trade the above towards a 70-200 L f2.8 (non-IS) and 2x conv.<br>

I also have a spare 50mm f1.8 EF (got a mark 1, my mark 2 is redundant) to add as a weight maker.<br>

What do you think? Worth doing?</p>

<p>I have yet to hear of anyone who is satisfied with the 70-200 / 2X converter combination. That has been asked many time on this forum. Poor resolution and loss of autofocus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Poor resolution and loss of <a href="#" target="_blank">autofocus</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Poor resolution, yes – or, at least, image quality that might be fit only for rather casual use. Loss of AF, no, the combination is f/5.6 and will AF on any EOS body, although AF will be slow. There's also some odd restriction on using the Extender 2x on the non-IS 70~200/2.8, perhaps it's something to do with off-centre AF points, but you should check it out.</p>

<p>I don't know what you'll get for the items you propose to sell, but if you are going down this road, it really is worth aiming for the IS version of the 70~200/2.8, especially if you plan to use the Extender 2x. For when you want to go beyond 200mm but don't need 400mm, you might also consider the Extender 1.4x, which, unlike the Extender 2x, will work pretty well with this lens.</p>

<p>70-200/2.8 + 2X converter should autofocus fine. Image quality is probably similar to the Sigma 50-500.</p>

<p>Paul, if I were you, I'd dump the Sigma, the 135/2.8 and one of the 50/1.8's, and pick up 70-200/4 IS with a 1.4-x converter. Later, I'd get one or two of the more affordable longer L primes (300mm, 400mm), which will work very well with the 1.4-x. (My assumption is that you prefer the tele to the wide end).</p>

<p>Cheers folks, thinking more about the 1.4x, can't run to the IS version, I always use a tripod or monopod anyway, £500 extra is a bit much to stomach.<br>

I really want the f2.8 over the f4 version as I'm delighted with the AF performance of the f2.8 200 prime, I want the extra cross points that f2.8 brings on my bodies.<br>

Thanks all and keep it coming.</p>

<p>I would avoid the 2x converter, I tried it out on a 70-200 2.8 and it did not give good results the 1.4x was very good. I agree to sell the Sigma, 135 and a 50 and get a 70-200 either F4 IS or 2.8. </p>

<p>Oops what am I thinking, you won't loose autofocus with the 70-200 2.8 + the 2X, but you might with the 700-200 4.0 + 2X. The 1.4 converter would work well.</p>

Could you swing both the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and a 400/5.6 prime? If not I'd keep the 50-500, sell the rest, and just get the 70-200/2.8 without any TC.

<p>

<p dir="ltr">1. What is your final goal apart from the reduction of the number of lenses?</p>

<p dir="ltr">2. What do you mainly shoot?</p>

<p dir="ltr">3. Which body do you have?</p>

<p dir="ltr">4. Apart from the lenses' worth, do you have more budget?</p>

<p dir="ltr">I had a 2X converter and I tried it with 70-200/2.8 (IS and non-IS). Didn't like the results. Stopped using it and later sold it.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>I'm currently using an EOS 400D (XTi) which is fine for my purposes, but it really needs f2.8 lenses to get the centre AF point to come alive (becomes cross axis) as I use centre spot with Ai Servo this AF system is actually fine for me.<br>

I also have an EOS 3, but I'm using this less and less these days (although I've gor 5 rolls of Sensia 100 near their expirey)<br>

The main goal is to reduce the number of lenses. I have some duplication and see the 70-200 with a convertor as the best way of keeping most of the coverage but having less to carry.<br>

Although I'm happy with the performance of the 50-500 in all but poor light, I'm not keen on the massive extension as you zoom, the 70-200s are internal zoom.<br>

I shoot a lot of different things from soccer to motorsports to wildlife.<br>

I could put something towards the lens, but a) it's the wrong time of year for that with Christmas coming up and b) my XTi is getting pretty scrappy, still working fine but its been heavily used and I know it's not going to go on forever so I want to keep some cash for a new body in the new year (I would actually be happy with a 1000D -XS- but for having to buy new memory and battery grip) a 7D would be nice, but I would get shot from the missus.<br>

So ideally I want to consolidate, not lose much range and not spend too much money.<br>

I am leaning towards the 1.4x conv. Although I may even get this at a later date if I feel I'm missing the range.</p>

<p>70-200/2.8 non-IS + 400/5.6.</p>

<p>Happy hsooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>I suggest getting the x1.4MkII as well as the x2.0MkII, if not instead of.</p>

<p>I would strongly suggest that you look at the IS version of the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L - very few folk can say for certain that they won't ever need the IS - you mention <strong><em>"I shoot a lot of different things . . . Wildlife" </em></strong>that’s an alarm bell for me</p>

<p>The restriction Robin mentioned <em>is AF point related</em> and I understand that your camera is on the list of cameras such that: <em>only the Centre AF will work when the 70 200F/2.8 + 2.0MkII are stacked.</em> <em>You should confirm this information for yourself.</em></p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>"I have yet to hear of anyone who is satisfied with the 70-200 / 2X converter combination. That has been asked many time on this forum."</em></strong></p>

<p>I have commented on many of those previous threads. And I have given examples. I know Colin Southern also provided somewhat clinical samples for comparison.</p>

<p><em>If one needs the shot and knows how to use the equipment, then the EF70-200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII is more than satisfactory, IMO. There are limits though and one must respect limits. Good knowledge and application in PP is necessary also, to maximize the image's impact.</em></p>

<p>These two recent samples are both shot at F/6.3 (i.e. the lens opened up only 1/3 stop from wide open.</p>

<p>I have included a sample with AF tracking Transverse Motion (and Camera Panning) and also Head-On Motion.</p>

<p>Both images <em>are approximating my Limit of Tv for: Subject Motion, Swimming Stroke and considering the lens and Teleconverter Combination being Hand Held</em>. This was done, to achieve the lower ISO, I required.</p>

<p>It just is a case of knowing the gear, and knowing how to extract the most from the gear and knowing the limits of the gear and one's personal limits also.</p>

<p>For these shots I was travelling light weight and, obviously, the 400F/2.8L would have been sharper, crisper and more contrast - but hey it is a load of a lens, and I would have needed a monopod. Instead I used the EF70 to 200F2.8L USM and the x 2.0MkII and went Hand Held, the results IMO are more than acceptable for sale.</p>

<p>For closer scrutiny larger files are here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=942325">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=942325</a></p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>

<p>And:</p><div></div>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I'm impressed. I never got such results.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the continued responses and images.<br /> There are a few reasons I would prefer to go with the non-IS version:<br /> Cost. If it was a question of spending an extra £500 or sticking with what I have then I would need to stick with what I have.<br /> Unfortunately I simply cannot justify the expense.<br /> Secondly, I always use a tripod, superclamp or monopod. No exceptions. I come from a video background and this is no ordeal for me. This makes IS redundant for me 99% of the time. The extra cost is not warranted for the 1% of occassions it might be handy. I'm not making a living from photography so again, simply cannot justify it, especially when I'm probably going to have to buy a new body at some point soonish.<br /> Besides for my nature and sports I would be wanting to keep the shutter speed up anyway, regardless of IS, as there is always considerable motion blur at such magnifications.<br /> Lastly, image quality. Of the many reviews I have read, inlcuding my most trusted sources of DP review and photozone.de, the non-IS comes out sharper, with quite a big difference when used on an APS-C body, as the bulk of the time it will be.<br /> I am not suggesting the IS version is a poor lens, but these in-depth reviews indicate that for my purposes the non-IS is sharper. I am coming from the very sharp 200 f2.8 L, I'd like to stay as close to that as possible.</p>

<p>Re the AF operation William, I only use the centre spot with Ai Servo in any case, I get cross axis centre point with f2.8 lenses which is why I haven't opted for the similarly priced weather sealed IS f4 version of the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >I still stand by my comment that there are very few people who can say that for certain they will never use IS on the 70 to 200. You (Paul) do not have to justify anything to me, but you need to be sure of it yourself. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >FWIW I find your comments relieve my "alarm bells". Also FWIW this is not a "competition" - I just was very certain I would very rarely, if ever use the IS on my 70 to 200 . . . If I was not clear in my comments - the above images were taken with the EF 70 to 200F/2.8 L USM (i.e. NOT the IS version).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have access to a 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM and - I availed myself of that lens to shoot some snowboarding . . . <em >you should consider if ever you might want to use "IS 2" aka "Panning IS"</em> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also you should consider how you will cover any low light situations - like a play, or concert for example – personally I find F/2.8 too slow anyway for low light – BUT with the ISO creeping up on the recently released 50D, 7D, 5DMkII etc . . . a 70 to 200 IS can be a useful tool to be able to HH at say 1/60s on an APS-C - just thinking out aloud and playing Devil’s Advocate</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As to the comparative quality of the two lenses, I have read those test results also. Although I love theory I can report that the IS version I used side by side my NON IS version for three days of snowboarding . . . I could not see any difference in the final prints - BOTH lenses are super-dooper, IMO. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As for the comment about weather sealing - I am not making an argument with you, but that is irrelevant - unless one is using weather sealed cameras </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The proof is in the pudding - again not making this a competition but I too read many times on various forums how the 70 to 200 + 2.0MkII tele-extender gives crap results - well yes it can - but it can also give very good results, too. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And, I add I too usually use a pod (an Monopod) sometimes just for the 70 to 200 bare - but that set from which the two images above were taken, were all hand held.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I note that the 70 to 200 + 1.4MkII can give excellent results.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The proof is in the pudding - not in the test results, IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I also use (almost always) for MOVING Subjects Centre Point AF and AI Servo. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I advise that you <strong ><em >do not</em></strong> use AI servo for stationary Subjects. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And for rhythmic or repetitive motion or a specific area of shot (e.g. at a finish line), sometimes a pre-focus point is better than using AI Servo, or if the aperture allows, even using zone focus can be useful – though I doubt I have ever used zone focus with the x2.0MkII attached.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Good luck with you purchase Paul. Enjoy.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yakim - thanks for your kind comment. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Hi William W, I wasn't being, or at least didn't mean to come accross as combative, I appreciate your experiences and advice, one of the bodies is weather sealed up to 1n standards (my film 3) one isn't (my xti) I'm likely to go the way of the 50D or 7D when my body dies, so these do have some weather proofing. That said the whole lot is ususally wrapped up in a Kata rain jacket in inclement conditions.<br>

I'll stick with Ai Servo for now, I shoot birds a fair bit and one shot af isn't fast enough in use to make this practical, MF isn't great with the XTi viewfinder, Ai Servo has worked well enough for me so far, though I appreciate your thoughts.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3622/3418441647_122befd504_b.jpg" alt="" width="683" height="1024" /><br>

This was with the Bigma, in good light, using centre Ai Servo.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I wasn't being, or at least didn't mean to come accross as combative"</em></strong></p>

<p>You have misunderstood me. I wasn't either. I was merely supplying information.</p>

<p>I think you have thought this all through very soundly – I wrote <em>“I still stand by my . . .”</em></p>

<p>because I believe very few people can actually say they won’t need the IS – it seems to me that you can, nad have thought carefully about it – but I just wanted to mention other considerations like panning for instance . . . which you might not have considered</p>

<p>Re the Weather Sealing: I didn't pick up on the film body. Point noted, thanks.</p>

<p>The reason I mentioned not to use AI Servo for Stationary Subjects, is that sometimes (mainly I have found when using continuous shooting) the AF will refocus and the second shot will be OoF - this might be peculiar to some cameras on not others - I don’t know, but it has happened to me and to some of my colleagues - there are threads on this topics in this forum and also the Wedding Forum.</p>

<p>Nice picture.</p>

<p>WW</p>