What's new
By:
Filters
ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

70-200mm F2.8L & Extenders - Talk to Me



H

Habitual

Hey Guys,

I want to upgrade my telephoto to something half decent because I spend a lot of time shooting sports and aviation.

Naturally, I was thinking of the Canon 70-200 F2.8L lens but I'm a little worried that when I make a move to a FF camera next year that the 200mm will be restricting.

I'm on a relatively tight budget of ~£1000 and want to get it right first time or at least buy a lens that will keep me happy for a few years.

Half of me says buy the 2.8L and an extender, but I've read a couple of articles on these that have put me off:

http://digital-photography-school.c...-using-tele-converters-extenders-on-your-dslr

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc.htm

Then again, with a fast lens, need I worry?

The other half of me says just buy a slower Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

Like I say, I use my telephoto a fair bit for motorsport and aviation. I also like to use it for candid photography from time to time.

What would people recommend I do? Suggestions other than the above are more than welcome.

Additionally, does anyone have experience in similar areas with the F2.8 and extenders?

Is the F2.8 it fast enough?

Is the glass quality a fair trade off for focal length?

Should I get the 400mm or will the quality be an issue?

I see sets like this and think "That's the quality I want!".

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=492906
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=488784
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=493641
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=493403

Other than their exceptional talent (obviously) and a better body ultimately, what will I require telephoto wise?

Thanks in advance folks!

Tom.
 
JamesBryan

JamesBryan

ClioSport Club Member
@ 400mm

8641272044_038dd374ea.jpg


@ 170mm

8479070997_e369edf9fe.jpg


Quite a few on my Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/james350d/
 
H

Habitual

Okay man, well I'm potentially interested but I'm going to do some more poking around. Could you do me a favour and send me a link to a brand new one please man? That way I'll know exactly what I am buying, spec wise.
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

Right...

70-200mm on full frame is too short for motorsport stuff. You would definitely need the extender.
You wont get a 70-200 2.8 + extender for £1k - or if you do it will be the non IS version and the IS is VERY nice

IMO go straight for the 100-400 or the 70-300 as both have IS, both have a bit more range and the DOF at f4/5.6 at 300-400mm will still be nice for candid shots.
 
H

Habitual

Thanks Phil, appreciate that mate.

I guess it's all about horses for courses eh fellas?

I'm thinking the 200mm will be too short for aviation and motorsport on FF if my 250 on my APS-C sensor is anything to go by...

If you've still got this lens when I come to buy James, I'll send you a PM. Do you have it advertised anywhere?
 
JamesBryan

JamesBryan

ClioSport Club Member
Habitual said:
Thanks Phil, appreciate that mate.

I guess it's all about horses for courses eh fellas?

I'm thinking the 200mm will be too short for aviation and motorsport on FF if my 250 on my APS-C sensor is anything to go by...

If you've still got this lens when I come to buy James, I'll send you a PM. Do you have it advertised anywhere?
Click to expand...

No mate, I've only told a few people that i'm thinking of selling it. I'm in no rush, plus I won't let it go for much less than i've said.

If i've still got it when you come to buy one, yeah PM me.
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

Yep I shot Waddington air show at the weekend with a 70-200 2.8 IS on a crop and it wasn't long enough.
It's also not quite long enough for some of the shots I'd like from track side

It's my mates that I'm using for now - but I'm looking at the 70-300 in a few months as I want a bit more reach.

If I was on full frame shooting motorsport/action stuff i'd get the 100-400

The f2.8 on the 70-200 is nice if you use it for portraits and studio work - but it's pointless doing panning/action shots.
Grab a 50mm 1.4 for studio work ;)
 
dunganick

dunganick

  Oil Burner
An interesting thread. I will reply properly once i have access to some of the images i would like to show.

Fair to say i disagree :eek:
 
H

Habitual

Cup_Phil said:
Yep I shot Waddington air show at the weekend with a 70-200 2.8 IS on a crop and it wasn't long enough.
It's also not quite long enough for some of the shots I'd like from track side

It's my mates that I'm using for now - but I'm looking at the 70-300 in a few months as I want a bit more reach.

If I was on full frame shooting motorsport/action stuff i'd get the 100-400

The f2.8 on the 70-200 is nice if you use it for portraits and studio work - but it's pointless doing panning/action shots.
Grab a 50mm 1.4 for studio work ;)
Click to expand...
I have a 50 1.8 and love it, so that's on the cards. Are you on flickr mate? Thanks again for your input. :)

dunganick said:
An interesting thread. I will reply properly once i have access to some of the images i would like to show.

Fair to say i disagree :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah, really interested in what you have to say man. Love your work.
 
D

dk

  911 GTS Cab
I have a 70-200 f4 and wanted something longer and so rented an extender to take to Antarctica.

i was disappointed, I was getting soft shots, my 70-200 is normally pin sharp. So I stopped using it after a few days. Maybe it was because I have the f4 though so it slows it down to a 5.6 I think with the extender.

I wouldn't use one again though. They aren't cheaper either.
 
Niall

Niall

ClioSport Club Member
James's 100-400 is great for reach, it was long on FF so on crop it'd be insane; it'd be an effective 640mm on Canon 1.6x crop, so that'd be ideal for your plane stuff, the autofocus is quick and it feels really sturdy, I think you'd like it. I have to agree with Phil too, it is better to have over 200 for FF for the stuff you do.
 
H

Habitual

dk said:
I have a 70-200 f4 and wanted something longer and so rented an extender to take to Antarctica.

i was disappointed, I was getting soft shots, my 70-200 is normally pin sharp. So I stopped using it after a few days. Maybe it was because I have the f4 though so it slows it down to a 5.6 I think with the extender.

I wouldn't use one again though. They aren't cheaper either.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the input man. Aha, I noticed that teleconverters aren't recommended on lenses that start at about F4/5 from what I've read dude.

Niall97 said:
James's 100-400 is great for reach, it was long on FF so on crop it'd be insane; it'd be an effective 640mm on Canon 1.6x crop, so that'd be ideal for your plane stuff, the autofocus is quick and it feels really sturdy, I think you'd like it. I have to agree with Phil too, it is better to have over 200 for FF for the stuff you do.
Click to expand...
Cheers Niall, appreciate your input. Would you buy one?

Oh, and 640... LOL!
 
H

Habitual

Okay, cheers fellas. This seems to be the main vote on TP too so far. Glad I asked cause I may have gone for the 200. Wouldn't mind one eventually though....
 
Red Cup

Red Cup

ClioSport Club Member
  Focus RS
I've got the 70-200 F2.8L II IS and a 2x II teleconverter and I've only used the tele a couple of times in the past year. Found that 200mm was enough for Oulton and Anglesey without media access. Done Silverstone a couple of times but had passes for those. Neither times I used it were for motorsport - one was for archery, the other rowing.

I can barely tell the difference in image quality between using it and not, although the focus is a little slower. It does help that the 70-200 is such a fast, sharp lens though!
 
E

Expired

  Clio 1.2 16v
Hmm, I bought a Mk2 2x extender to use on my 70-200 F2.8L (Mk1) and sold it almost straight away.

Couldn't put up with the slow autofocus (which appeared to be confused more often than not with the extender on) and found a lot of images were quite soft.

Just my opinion but would avoid using them.
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

There's a massive difference between motorsport and aeroplane shots...
Even low flying at shows

I stick to my opinion that you need the extra range of the 100-400mm over the speed of the 70-200 2.8

If you were shooting indoors or wanting to do a fair bit of closer/studio work I'd say the 70-200 - but for aeroplane photograph you definitely want 400mm.

I was shocked playing with the 70-200 2.8 on a 5D MKII just how much difference full frame makes, you can use the thing indoors easily. I was taking shots of my mate in the office like 5m away. On crop it's a fairly long lens.

I'm renting the 70-300 to have a play with before I buy it. At around £60 for a weekends rental be mad not to have a play around with one before I cough up £1200 lol
 
dunganick

dunganick

  Oil Burner
I had just written out a long post about how the L series lenses all make sense on FF. But you dont want to read me going on.

The short of it. I dont feel 70-200, let alone 70-200 + 1.4tc is too short for some motorsports photography. Alot of it depends on what style of photo you take. If you want tightly cropped shots, yet you will want a 300 or 400mm on a crop body. If you shoot slightly wider shots and/or arn't afraid to crop a bit (you would be surprised how hard so called 'professional' images get cropped) then it is still a fine combination.

The British GP weekend i was fortunate enough to be lent a 1DX by Canon, I expected the loss of crop factor (i shoot a 1.3 and 1.6 crop bodies) to be a problem, but it wasn't. Not to mention that with the increase in image quality meant i could just crop if i wanted to.

As a side note the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) is superb and a bargain! And it works great with a 1.4tc when coupled with a pro body (the 7d doesn't like the TC)

And F2.8 on a FF lens is just awesome. I think looking at your style of photography it would suit you.

I can only recomend you try them. Personally i hate the 100-400. Whilst it offers an unmatched range of focal lengths for the price and at good quality. I never liked the appearance of images it produced, i would miss the F2.8 for pit/paddock. The weather sealing is pants and they are known for sucking dust up and i know of several that the locking mech has failed on.

I would get a Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS over one. And then put a 1.4tc on if you needed the focal length.

I know i havent really given you any clear answers there. But it's not something that has a correct answer. Everyone finds their own favourite combination of lenses/bodies.

As another side note... F2.8 on pans does have it's place ;)

Well f4.5 in this one. But the background separation couldn't be achieved with panning alone on this shot.

DTM_BRANDS_HATCH_2012-9592-L.jpg


And well for action shots! That's what shallow depth of field is for!!!!

NURBURGRING_24HR-8846-L.jpg


So many uses!

DTM_BRANDS-HATCH_2013-0493-L.jpg


BRITISH_GRANDRIX_SILVERSTONE_2013-8186-L.jpg
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

Thing is though - comparing the mega resolution of a 1DX to a 6D isn't really fair lol

Also he stated he wants to do planes and action - I still don't think a 70-200 is right.
You can't just choose to walk onto a runway to get closer

I loved the 70-200 2.8 non-IS I had... it was the best lens I've ever owned but there was quite a few times I wish it had been a bit longer and I never took a shot on it below f4/5.6 - hence why I'm looking at the 70-300 this year :)

The new Canon IS system is insane too, for those of us mortals that don't have your panning talent :)
 
dunganick

dunganick

  Oil Burner
1dx - 18.1 mp
6d - 20.2 mp

I didn't really recommend the 70-200 as the solution. More that it's an important lens in the lens line-up.

For the Mac Loop type stuff, alot of the guys are using lenses like 300 f4 or 400 5.6. Plus those with deep pockets using the big 2.8 or f4 primes.
 
H

Habitual

Guys, really appreciate the input. I think that although I want the mega quality of the 2.8, I am going to go with the 400 because it's going to be a more scalable lens in terms of upgrading my body next year. Additionally, it will immediately be better suited to aviation stuff.

With that said, dunganick, you really sold the 70-200 F2.8 lol. I'm probably still going to get a 70-200 F2.8 at some point because of the sheer quality it has to offer. And like you say, 70mm on a FF will not be an issue. My 50mm prime on a crop (80mm) will be worse indoors than that, so as a general lens the 70-200 would be an excellent asset to my arsenal as I already spend most of my time shooting with my prime anyway.

I'm going to rent the 400mm for the Air Tattoo in a few weeks before I really make up my mind, but I already think I'm set...

I think the plan for me is buy the 100-400, let the missus recover emotionally for a few months to a year, get the 5D MK3 and then get the 70-200 F2.8 II. Or something like that. I'd like to upgrade my wide angle at some point, but I hardly use that so it can wait.

Thanks again fellas.
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

Other thing to look at mate is the 135mm f2
If you want pin sharp with an amazing DOF - it's £400 cheaper than even the non-IS 70-200 ;)

I spend way too much time renting and borrowing lenses - so much so that I can never decide what to actually buy lol
 
JamesBryan

JamesBryan

ClioSport Club Member
Cup_Phil said:
Other thing to look at mate is the 135mm f2
If you want pin sharp with an amazing DOF - it's £400 cheaper than even the non-IS 70-200 ;)

I spend way too much time renting and borrowing lenses - so much so that I can never decide what to actually buy lol
Click to expand...

The 135mm f2 L is awesome. Double the price of the non L series though.
 
Niall

Niall

ClioSport Club Member
I agree with Phil on that point, after using James's this weekend I couldn't get over how good it was, the autofocus was especially a luxury on the 5D2 for frantic street stuff. It's a nice focal length on FF too.
 
Cup_Phil

Cup_Phil

Yeah we did some back to back tests against the 70-200 2.8 in a studio. They are both sharp but the 135mm f2L is ever so slightly sharper. The AF is insanely fast and .... this is difficult to word but the 135mm gives a very pleasing silky bokeh that just makes me feel warm inside lol

It's on my lottery list for certain haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
An 18-200mm, but which one?
Replies
7
Views
709
DanFreemanPhoto
DanFreemanPhoto
E
Aviation Photography
Replies
26
Views
2K
Andy.
A
H
Another Telephoto Lens Thread
Replies
16
Views
1K
Habitual
H
C.J
Upgrading the 500D 'kit lens'
Replies
17
Views
2K
C.J
C.J
J
My E36 328i Sport
3 4 5
Replies
195
Views
16K
aucky
aucky


Top