70-200 F4 with 2x

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>I'm stuck trying to find a 2x converter to make it into a 140-400mm for my high school's baseball season. I can't find any good 2x with AF that works with the F4. The only thing that is in the way is the budget max I have on this. They school is only giving me 250 for anything that will do the job. When I say anything I'm still wanting not a rubbish IQ. If anyone could give me any suggestions at all, I'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.<br>

NH</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>If you use a 1 series, you will still maintain AF with the center point, but anything else will lose AF as it will be an f/8 lens. I would either get a 1.4x converter or get closer. Although you may have to crop, you will have AF. Manual focus is very hard for sports unless you focus on an area and wait for the action to occur there, which is very easy to do in baseball for the crack of the bat, but for baserunning may be tougher. That being said, I'd rather have a lesser quality cropped photo that is sharp than a full res blurry photo; therefore the 1.4x is my pick to maintain AF. Of course the 2x will work on a 2.8 lens, but that doesn't seem to be in the budget.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>The Canon 2X works well with the 70-200 f2.8, but will turn your F4 to an F8. You'll loose auto focus, but you may find manual focus OK f you have enough light.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>@ Nathan - Yes, I do have a canon 70-200 f4 1 series. So my only bet I'm guessing to keep that AF is to have a 1.4x which wouldn't kill my F/ stops. But in retrospect, I could still purchase the 2.0x and still have that AF with just center point, which wouldn't be that bad for baseball because it does involve the whole frame. Thanks.<br>

NH</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You will need a 1 series <em>camera </em>for AF with the f4 + 2X.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Nathan meant a 1 series camera body - ie, a 1D or 1Ds. Those cameras can autofocus at f/8. Other camera bodies can only reliably autofocus at f/5.6.</p>

<p>Yes, you could use the 1.4x. Doing that, plus getting closer to the action, would be the simplest fix.</p>

<p>You could also rent something like the 100-400. Looks like you can get that lens for a month within your budget.</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Whoops read that wrong. Yes I have a 5D mark I. So this means I can use my 5D with the 70-200 F4 with the Canon 2.0x TC and still have the ability of AF? Because if so then that just helped me a lot. Thanks.<br>

NH</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I'm pretty sure the 5D <strong>does not</strong> auto-focus on any points at f/8.</p>

<p>There is the infamous "<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0078YS">tape trick</a>" where you can fool the camera into thinking the lens is still at f/4, but the AF probably won't work very well/reliably (esp. for tracking moving subjects), but YMMV.</p>

<p>Also, some third-party TCs send the original lens' aperture to the camera (in effect having the "tape trick" built in).</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Well shoot.. So what opportunities do I have for a lens converter for my 5D mark I with the 70-200F4 then? In other words, if you had the the $250 and still needed the Al FOCUS but also need those extra mm's threw that lens, what would you do? Thanks.<br>

NH</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>The 1.4x teleconverter will work fine, since it will only take your lens to f/5.6. You really don't have any other TC options that will guarantee your AF will work reliably.</p>

<p>Rental is probably the best option if you need the reach...rent a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x TC...with that combo, you effectively have a bit more range than your original plan...70-280 and 300-420 with both lenses, with and without the TC. Not sure if that will really fit in your budget, though. However, if they're not providing a realistic budget for you, maybe you shouldn't worry as much about the IQ...you get what you pay for...</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>Another option is to get a 1.6x crop camera to attach to your 70-200 f/4 (making it like a 112-320 on your 5D). With $250 though I don't think you'd get much more than a 20D used. Just wanted to toss out another possibility.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The EF 1.4x TC works great on my 70-200mm f/4L IS. Using the 5D you can crop a little. Also, with your press credential you should be able to get pretty close to the action. A 2x might be nice, but AF is require for b'ball.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>a used 20D may be your best option. It will work as a 1.6x converter (since its APS-C and you have FF) and your lens will still be an f/4, giving you a 112-320mm f/4 (effective) at 8MP. The 20D runs about $200 used. Not only will this extend your lens with no loss of quality, AF, or speed, but you'll have a 2nd body and can put another lens on your 5D, making it faster to shoot with different lenses. As for the quality of the 20D, I can vouch for that; I used one several years ago and absolutely loved it. Like most people, I upgraded because I like new toys, but the truth is that I can't tell the difference in images shot with my old 20D from ones shot with my 40D or 1D II. It is, in my opinion, the best camera you can get for the money.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Sorry, but I just noticed that Ed suggested the same thing. I didn't see that he wrote that, but it may be a testimony to the 20D if two of eight people suggest it as a better solution to your conundrum. </p>

<p>Also, if you get the 20D and then want to use a 1.4x converter, you'll have an effective 157-448mm f/5.6.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I'll add to the 20D suggestion, despite my earlier comments. I have two of them, and they do indeed take fine pictures. I put an ad in my local Craigslist Photo/Video section offering to buy one, and had responses the same day.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>You cover with what you got on baseball in your own field and you need AF for any ball game shutter go over 400 bit to much for MF, unless it dozen shots to do.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Forget buying anything, just crop your images. 9 times out of 10 the end quality is just as good if not better anyway. Buying a 20D will be a waste of time. You'll gain little in overall resolution because of the MP difference between the 20D and 5D. Not only that, the IQ of the 5D is streets ahead of the 20D to start with.</p>

<p>If you insist on spending money, the only sensible thing to do would be to rent a decent long lens for a short period. I highly recommend the 300mm f4L IS, it works exceptionally well with the 1.4x.</p>

<p>Forget 2x extenders, especially with slow zoom lenses. They're a complete waste of time.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>With Baseball, a 70-200 on a 5D should be plenty for Shots at the plate, 3rd or 1st. However, you'll need something longer for shots of the Outfield and 2nd base. Move around, get in/behind the two dugouts and you'll get plenty of close shots. 200mm was plenty from my experience.</p>

<p>Also, like others have said here, don't be afraid to crop. Depending on what your print size is, I doubt you will notice even major crops until you at an 8x10 or higher.</p>

[dstiles]

<p>Another thing to consider would be renting an appropriate lens, like the EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6L. You could probably get the lens for a week with shipping and insurance for about $100. I'd get it a couple of days early to give yourself some time to adjust to the push/pull zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I agree with the rental option, and even moreso with Jamie's 'buy nothing' option. You currently have ...12 megapixels? 15? I forget. Either way, double digits. If it's a school, the only people you might potentially sell an 8x10 to would be a parent of one of the players.</p>

<p>For the school, cropping in will give you plenty of resolution for whatever they need to do with it. For the parents, they just want photos of their kids in action, and are EXTREMELY unlikely to notice (or care) if the image is a few megapixels too low. A budget of $250 tells me they're not expecting AP-quality images of A-Rod.</p>

<p>I think that all options considered (TC, 100-400 rental, 20D) the 5D at f/4 is the most likely to give you the fastest, most accurate focus and the highest shutter speed. I think that if you really want to stand out, the best way to spend the money would be to use it to buy props/rent space/hire assistants to stage a really cool team photo.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Another vote for Jamie Robertson's suggestion for this particular situation - CROP.</p>

<p>I play a lot with tele-extenders vs. cropping.<br>

This is a RANDOMLY chosen image from a set of about 50 from one of my tests using the EF 70 to 200/2.8L USM at 200mm on a 5D, (and subsequently using the two MkII tele extenders shooting the same Subject, under the same lighting conditons).<br>

<br />Shooting: F/4.5 @ 1/1600s @ ISO250, Manual Exp, AWB, Spot Meter, ONE SHOT, Single Frame; Centre Point AF, Hand Held.</p>

<p>The image is the JPEG SOOC.</p>

<p>Conditions: Afternoon Spring Sun, about 3:00pm, 34 Degrees South; Full Frame Crop.</p>

<p>It has been resized in Photoshop to allow for posting here, "save for web" option: no other manipulation.<br />The subsequent crops are direct from the original JPEG SOOC, with no manipulation.</p>

<p>As shot FL =200mm<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12883353-md.jpg" alt="" /> <br />Cropped to simulate FL = 400mm<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12883354-md.jpg" alt="" /> <br />Cropped to simulate FL = 600mm<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12883355-md.jpg" alt="" /> <br />Working on the RAW file, I can make better. I suspect your 70 to 200/4 is quite a sharp lens, also.</p>

<p>I disagree that tele-extenders are a complete waste of time (on zoom lenses and also on F/4 zoom lenses) – they are useful in some situations – but I agree certainly NOT the best solution for this scenario.</p>

<p>WW</p>