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



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

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?


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

Here's that shot right out of the camera before being cropped in Dxo9... Well, I can't, file too large. (

Really want an excuse to buy the 200-400 1.4 but what if I miss just as many shots as I do now because it's so freaking big and heavy or can't zoom wide? But I'm a sharpness and resolution nut, and a "If you buy the best you only cry once" believer. Then again, $11k is a hell of a lot of mula for a freaking camera lens! Got kids to put through college and need a new roof on the office...

Wondering if I should buy back my ef 35-350L f/3.5-5.6 that I sold a few months ago. Selling that may have been a mistake.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

I guess one big question is:
Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 25, 2014)

There is no replacement for the 200-400 for that range; The 70-200 is brilliant by itself but doesn't go well with a 2X - I've tried. What about a 300 f/4 or a 400 f/5.6 and 5D3? Or a Sigma 120-300? Either way you'd get some more reach without giving up all your money.

To answer your latest question, I'd put the 70-200 on a crop body before I try it with the extender.

Jim


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

Thanks! 
I wonder if the 200-400 is just too freaking much lens for anything than a dedicated trip to the Yukon to shoot polar bears or something.
I wonder if I buy is it going to be just too damn cumbersome to take to a game... 
Have you ever used a monster lens?


----------



## candc (Aug 25, 2014)

I would wait til the 7dii comes out, Avoid the 2x converters. The thing about them is that you have to stop down one stop and then your at f/8 the 1.4xiii will work really well with your 70-200 and you can shoot f/4. I have the sigma 120-300 sport. On a crop body it gets you the equivelant of 192- 480 and its 2.8. It works great with the canon 1.4xiii.


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 25, 2014)

If you are shooting sports have you thought about upgrading to the 5D mark III. I would get a 5D mIII and the 100-400mm or the 300mm f4 is.
The 200-400 is wonderful but is it worth the price? If you got the money, maybe.


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 25, 2014)

Night = expensive ...

There is no way around it, it's expensive glass or crazy high ISO, as stadiums really aren't illuminated for photography. If you're getting paid, then you know you need to invest in the gear. If you're not getting paid, consider what you are getting as 'best possible under the circumstances'. The 1.4x mk3 may give you the tidbit more reach you need, but you may get that from a crop body as well - it sounds like you're doing this with just one camera, which really doesn't allow the full range of options. An option is to leave your 6D with a 70-200, and pick up a used 1D mk4 and pair it with a 70-200 (with the option of adding a 1.4x tele on top of that).

Even a used v1 of the 400/2.8 may be the best tool for you if you're always shooing across a soccer field - it all depends on what you're shooting and whom you are shooting for.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 25, 2014)

While you're ordering the 200-400 you might as well order the 1Dx. :


----------



## seattlebirdman (Aug 25, 2014)

Let's say your budget was the price of the 200-400 w 1.4. For the amount you could alternatively get a 300 f2.8 II plus a 1D4 plus a 24-70 II. You could have the 300 on the 1d4 and use the 70-200 on the 6D and have the 24-70 for wider needs.

I think the second option would get you more keepers and would also give you other shooting options for non sports stuff too.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?


The big question is: which one will get the focus better - otherwise its a pointless exercise.
That's where a 70D, or whatever will be available past the upcoming tradeshow, has an advantage over the TC.
Use the full capabilities of the AF sensor and avoid the mandatory slowdown of the lens drive.
Also with high ISO - you can stay two stops lower with the crop camera, that compensates for the lower noise levels of a FF camera.


----------



## Claret-Flyer (Aug 25, 2014)

Hi i'd forget the 200-400, The 70-200 is great lens but shoot it at 2.8 you need to isolate the subject to get a great shot and shot from next to the goal about the edge of the 6 yard box is my favourite, know want a shot of the back of goal scorers head. I my experience you can only shot one end of game at once.

If your shooting football, I'd find a second hand 400mm 2.8 with IS or even a 300 2.8, there are some coming on the market because the mark2 is far lighter and for nature shouter's that really makes a difference as they generally have to carry for miles for football you can general get the lens pitch side in it's case and use it as a seat with the lens on mono pod, you photo will look better from just being sat down. Get a camera that focuses properly the 6d has a shock AF system, 5D mark 3 or ideally a 1Dx the AF is stunning is just about possible to shout action with and 85 1.2 mark2 but with 70-200 the hit rate is over 95% and 12 frames a second is need some times if these and incident . I've tried using a 120-300 pervious generation sigma but the AF wasn't quick enough, the current one appears to of improved but i've not tested it.

I started taking non league football 15 plus years ago, I used to get some great results from a Nikon F4s 80-200 2.8 and F5 with an old nikon 300 2.8 af so as the game you've shot in the photo does appear to have averting boards you got to stay behind. I'd get a a second hand 300 2.8 and better camera ideally a 1Dx and focus on the action in and around the 18 yard box. I've got a friend with a 1d4 and the AF is not a patch on the 1DX or 5d 3


----------



## rs (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I guess one big question is:
> Which will give better resolution, putting the 70-200 2.8 mk2 on a 70D body with the 1.6x 20.2MP crop sensor APS-C, or putting a 2x Mk3 teleconvertor on the 70-200 2.8?


Not quite a 6D or a 70D, but a 21MP FF (1Ds3) and an 18MP crop (60D), both with the lens and TC you requested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## hendrik-sg (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> 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).



may i ask you, why you stop down a 2.8 lens to 6.3 and use ISO 12800 to compensate. you could have used ISO <3000 at f=2.8? at ISO 12800 you have a lot of loss in details even with a 6d, use the len wider open at less ISO would give you better quality technically. 

If you want to shoot stopped down to 5.6 or less (to have more DOF for example or to be less critical with focusing, why not use a 100-400 lens for even more versatility in focal lengh? Maybe use some of your budget for a 5D3, which has much better autofocus. you 6D you can use as a 2nd cam with a normal zoom, to get wider shots.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> 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).
> 
> You think the price of the 200-400 1.4 will continue to drop?



The settings you used for this shot were indeed not the most appropriate. I would use iso 6400, aperture f/2.8 but would increase the shutter speed to 1/800. A shutter speed of only 1/320 is not sufficient to get tack sharp images for football. Be aware that you would need AFMA for that combination to.

Personal I would on my 1Dx start with shutter speed 1/1000, aperture 2.8, auto-iso and EC of +1/3stop.

A 200-400 lens would give you no better photo in this case as you already loose 1 stop caused by the difference in max aperture. I regular take photo's of sports. However, even that every one says the 7D is a great camera for sports, I must admit that my keeper rate over there is low. With the 5D3 and the 1Dx the keeper rate is above 90%. This is all caused by the more advanced AF system for those 2 cameras. I never used a 6D myself, but when I look to several specs and remarks of this camera, I can guarantee you that your sports photos might only get a big jump in keeper rate by buying a 5D3, 1Dx or the 7D2 (if the rumors are correct for the AF system). This with the right technique might increase the quality of your sport photos. 

Don't start thinking about adding a 2x extender. The 2x version III is marvelous on several big whites like 300 2.8 mkii, however on the 70-200 2.8 mkii, the result is not that great. However you can use the 1.4x extender. 

We will see soon a new 100-400 mkII based on the rumors. This combined with the 7D2 might be a real winner for the hobby sport photographer. I would just wait a few weeks until all the announcement for Photokina 2014 are done.

I'm sure the 200-400 will drop in price, and for sure if there will be a new 100-400. Looking at Nikon, they have already several years a 200-400. Now, after the new introduction of the 80-400, a lot of people do even let this lens at home because of the high quality of the 80-400. If Canon brings a new 100-400. It will be real good. So, the 100-400, will place some commercial push on the price of the 200-400, and I'm quite sure, that the price of the 200-400 will further drop in that case.

I would not buy a 200-400 1.4x for placing on the 6D. I rather would buy then the new 7D2 which will give you already more reach for your 70-200 2.8ii. If reach would be not sufficient, then you might add a extender 1.4x or looking to the 100-400 (mkii) of Canon or perhaps the Sigma 120-300 2.8 or a Canon 300 2.8 mk ii.

If nighttime is that important then I would advice the 1Dx body. That combined with the 70-200 2.8 ii are the max for sports in dark conditions, of if you need more range then the 300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> 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:
> ...



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.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 26, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...




Main reason was I had my head up my butt. Got to the game only for the 2nd half, was in a hurry and set it up like I used to set up my beloved ef 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 for maximum sharpness. Honestly, if I'd kept that lens, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  I sold it for a great price because it wasn't the greatest walking around lens because it was push/pull zoom and was like an elephant tusk for walking around. Replaced it for walking around with a Sigma 24-105 Art lens, which I think was a good decision, but the 35-350 would have been perfect for the other night. Ce La Vie...

I try to shoot aperture priority at 5.6 since I like sharp, and 6.3 for added DOF where the soccer players aren't all lined up side by side. 
I don't think I'd like the current 100-400 based on it's bench testing. I bought a 2x tele the other day used on fleabay, but haven't got it yet. Sounds like I might as well just turn right around and sell it.
I'm probably gonna by a 7D mk2 or a 70D (if the price drops as a result) instead of a teleconvertor, although a 7D mk2 with the 70-200 plus a 1.4 convertor might make a helluva setup, too... (that would take the 70-200 out to 448mm)
Instead of the 200-400 buy the 7D2 with the above set up and use the 6D with the Sigma 24-105 f4. That would get me 24-105 and 112 (7D with 70-200 without the 1.4 tele) up to 448 (with the 1.4 TC). That's a staggering 18.67 zoom range with only changing out the teleconvertor.... Hmmm. And, I'd have have $8000 to spend on something else....
But, I wouldn't have the longest lens in the stadium (to make up for other shortcomings....).


----------



## FEBS (Aug 26, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> But, I wouldn't have the longest lens in the stadium (to make up for other shortcomings....).



But the longest lens would ask, no even beg, for a 1Dx or a 5D3 or maybe a 7D2 (dependent on the coming spec of course) to get most out of that beast of a lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 26, 2014)

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?


----------



## FEBS (Aug 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 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.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 26, 2014)

FEBS said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...




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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> 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.)
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 26, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

FEBS said:


> 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 (Aug 26, 2014)

AlanF said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > 1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.
> ...



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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

AlanF said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > 1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.
> ...



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 (Aug 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > FEBS said:
> ...



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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

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 (Aug 26, 2014)

CurtL5 said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Aug 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



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 (Aug 27, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I want the ultimate set up for nighttime athletics (etc.)
> ...



+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 (Aug 27, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?


----------



## FEBS (Aug 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?



Raw


----------



## eml58 (Aug 27, 2014)

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 (Aug 27, 2014)

FEBS said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or 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.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



No problem Alan. I'm also here to learn and where it is possible I give answers. I do understand now that you look for the very fine detail. I rather take sports. In sports a ISO 6400 of a 5d3 is still acceptable if applied the correct post processing. As mentioned before, I have no problem to go to 12800 or even 25600 on the 1dx. Mostly caused that after post processing you can't tell the difference with a 5d3 @ 6400iso. Yes, this is based on practice.

I know you are a big fan of the tamron 150-600. I have seen many times your replies and advices there about. I did read them a lot and enjoyed your experience with that big Ron. At the end I did however strike it from the short list to go on safari. I do have the 300 2.8 II, but my biggest concern was constantly changing extenders. Also for sports I would like the versatility of a zoom. At the end I pulled the trigger and bought the 200-400. I know it's bigger and heavier then the 150-600, but the iq is excellent from 200 till 560. I have also seen pictures on 784mm of that lens and they really looked good. This however I still have to test myself because I have to find out if it is ok for me on the way I use it. Perhaps, this might be a negative property of myself, but I like to see and test it myself before I will tell something here on the forum.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 27, 2014)

The 300mm f/2.8 II is my favourite lens and I preferentially use it on birding trips at home. But, the Tamron 150-600mm is good enough and is just so convenient for travel when I have to fly for a holiday. But, if I were to go on a specialist birding trip abroad or go on safari again I would take the 300 + extenders on the 5DIII and the 70-200 f/4 IS + 70D.


----------

