Need opinions on the 70-200 f/4 L when used with a 1.4 canon teleconverter

[kyle_joyce]

I'm looking to improve my current 100-300 f/5.6 non L and elan 7

setup. I've been debating a while (you may have seen my other posts).

I use it for little league so i have to have at least 280mm, and i

need a zoom so i don't miss shots that are closer to me.

 

For people who have used this setup how do you rate the focusing

speed and the quality of prints? how much improvement should i see

over the 100-300?

 

I just don't want to shell out $800+ and not see any or little

improvement.

But of course I will also use it without the teleconverter but just

not for business.

 

Thanks

 

kyle

[james_castagno]

You may save some weight as the 70-200f4L is fairlt light but I do not see any other advantage as far as work goes. You would be giving up a 300mm f5.6 lens for a 280mm f5.6 lens with the converter. I would imagine that the image quality would be a little better with the 70-200L but that is speculation as I have never owned one, I do own the 70-200f4 and the image quality is outstanding. I am sure someone with more knowledge than I will give you a more detailed answer.

[PuppyDigs]

I used the EF 100-300 USM for years and now have an EF 70-200 4L USM. The 70-200 whips the 100-300 in nearly every way save weight, size, cost and AF speed. Strangely, the old 100-300 USM has slightly faster focus, probably due to its rear element focus design. The small rear elements are easier to move quickly than the large element that controls focus in the 70-200 (just behind the front element).

 

However, with the 1.4 extender the EF 70-200 4L USM is very decent but not much of a gain over the EF 100-300 USM. It's long and clumsy and only marginally better optically. The EF 300 4L USM would be a much better choice in terms of optical gain.

[kyle_joyce]

i'm pretty sure i don't have the USM 100-300

is that the L version or another one totally

 

thanks

 

kyle

[PuppyDigs]

Well, there was an EF 100-300 5.6 (non USM) current in the late 80s. I owned one and I recall it had decent optical quality but terrible AF--slow and unreliable.

[John Crowe]

If you want to be sure of a big improvement and can live without the zoom you have two options in the same price range: a 200mm f2.8 L with 1.4x or even 2x, or a used 300mm f4 L (non-IS).

 

You can always shoot half a game with the zoom and half with the prime to get the best of both worlds.

 

Good luck!

[mark u]

You'd get a lot of improvement for less money than the 70-200 f/4 + TC with the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM. Fast AF, no TC to mess with and sharp, with the extra stop adding flexibilty for DOF and shutter speed. Not quite as sharp as a prime of course, but a great baseball lens that'll get you from first base to third in an instant - which no prime can match. Canon still really has no direct competitor for this lens, let alone its big brother (120-300 f/2.8).

[John Crowe]

Careful, although the Sigma may be faster and cheaper than the 70-200 and 1.4x it will not likely be sharper, and may not even be an improvement over the 100-300/5.6. A 120-300mm f2.8 is going to be extremely compromised in resolution, colour rendition, flare resistance, and contrast. If Canon made one to the standards of their other f2.8 L lenses it would cost $6000-$10000, and most pros will settle for a zoom on one body and a super telephoto prime on another.

[erin.e]

Are you speaking from experience with the Sigma 100-300 f4 and 120-300 2.8 John Crowe, or is this merely supposition on your part?

[mark u]

You might want to look at some highly relevant sample images here:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8643882

[mark u]

And here's the 120-300 f/2.8 dealing with some low light:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8963118

[John Crowe]

I have used 3rd party lenses that are very highly rated on this site and have replaced them over the years with Canon lenses and have been astonished to compare them head to head. The Canon lenses provide higher contrast, higher resolution, and better colour rendition. I have not used the specific lenses in question. I have conducted tests, albeit limited, with both manual focus lenses and autofocus lenses. As far as the big Sigma zooms go it is only logical from an engineering standpoint that most of these lenses are attempting to do too much for too little. There are MANY people on this site that love the Sigmas and shoot with them regularly. Althought the internet is certainly not an ideal way to compare lenses it at least provides an even playing field for comparing photographs, especially if taken with a DSLR, which many are. I have taken the time to compare images, taken by the big Sigmas and the Canon L telephotos of the same subject matter,on this site and on others. Unfortunately the images of course are never identical but similar in environment and the differences can be clearly seen. The images linked in this thread, using Sigma lenses, are indeed very good. If you take the time now to track down similar baseball shots taken with Canon lenses you will see an improvement in colour rendition, sharpness, and the out of focus palette.

 

Obviously 3rd party lenses fill an important hole in the marketplace but they must be accepted for what they provide. If choosing between two lenses of the same price but the Canon one offers less in zoom range, focal length, or speed, I would seriously consider accepting a little less to get a little more. For instance within a reasonable range it is possible to crop a photo taken with a 200mm lens to the dimensions of an image taken with a lesser quality but equally priced 300mm lens and be at least equal to it. Generally this can work for a 1.5x crop but not a 2x crop. Of course cropping does not replace the perspective and the proportional depth of field of the longer lens but in many situations where it can provide better colours and higher resolution it is more than acceptable. Good luck all!

[ted_reyes]

I own a 100-300 f4.5-f5.6 USM (non "L"), a 70-200 2.8L and a Canon 2X. The images from the L are far superior with or w/o the extender. 100-300 is extremely soft at the long end and does not have that sharp look but it focuses quickly with its USM. It is a strong consumer lens and I was very happy with it until I rented a 100-400L and 70-200L. Brought it to Orlando for a tournament to save on carrying weight and was disappointed with the 100-300 results.

 

 

With the 2X, my images are not as sharp so I try to use it only in bright sunlight. My pictures are primarily youth soccer now on the big field with a 10D. The f2.8 is at least twice as heavy as the 100-300 but that is why they invented monopods.

[ted_reyes]

The first was with the 2X extender this one is without....

[mark u]

I don't think that anyone would dispute for a moment that images from Canon's telephoto L primes will outdo any zoom. But you need more than one photographer if you're trying to cover baseball with primes and not risk missing key action. I don't believe that Canon has anything that matches these particular lenses. Whilst Canon's 70-200 Ls are very fine (and are attempting to achieve nearly 3x zoom ratio, compared with 3 and 2.5x for these Sigmas), using them with TCs does degrade image quality in a way that makes these Sigmas fully competitive. Indeed, a poster ditched his 70-200 f/2.8IS + TC to go to the Sigma 100-300 f/4.

 

The ability of independent lens manufacturers to make lenses that compete with even the best OEM lenses has improved by leaps and bounds over the years, whilst their value for money offerings at various points in the quality scale are also to be taken seriously. In some cases, 3rd party lenses are better than the best equivalent Canons - e.g. Tamron 90mm and 180mm macro. In other cases, they are extremely close competitors (e.g. Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 - you might be prepared to pay the premium for the IS version or closer minimum focus distance, but otherwise there is very little in it).

[erin.e]

A fair enough answer John. The Sigmas mentioned are worth the posters serious consideration as is the Sigma 70-200 HSM EX. These lense's are not cheap but they are quite a bit less than a equivalent Canon if there is one. The 70-200 HSM 2,8 is similar in cost to the 70-200 f4 Canon.

 

Here is another sample, 70-200 HSM 2.8, ISO 800, 2000sec, aperture.8 in light overcast rain.<div></div>

[erin.e]

100 percent crop

[ted_reyes]

Kyle,

If you have the 100-300 4.5-5.6, you will notice similar AF with a 70-200 and 1.4X if a 70-200 f4 responds similar to a f2.8. W/o the extender, the AF seems faster on my f2.8.

 

One comment regarding third party lenses, (I do not own a Sigma tried many 3rd party lenses before buying a 70-200 f2.8) AF is too slow for sports. I do own a Tokina 28-70 which I really like optically and works fine for my non sports needs.

 

Ted

[erin.e]

All the EX HSM Sigma lense's suggested or mentioned in this thread, 70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4, and 120-300 f2.8 are plenty fast enough in A1 servo for sports/action photography as the linked images prove. I provide images to a sports image bank using fast Sigmas.