70-200/2.8IS with 1.4xTC or 300/4?

JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
edited October 9, 2011 in Accessories
So which would be better, 70-200/2.8 with 1.4TCIII or 300/4????? Yeah, a used 300/4 is 2x the cost, but.. football/soccer/baseball next year might be handy.. Anyone have both??? I just have to keep cropping the hell out of my football shots with the 70-200 which isn't that bad, but figured maybe the 1.4x TCIII might be the answer.. but then realized the 300/4 is pretty reasonable too. So, a 98-280/4 or just straight 300/4? I know the new TCIII's are damn good, just don't know if I'd hate loosing the zoom to go fixed...
Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com

Comments

  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2011
    Do you mean the used 300/4 is 2x the cost of the TC? The 300/4 is really nice. It's light (lighter than your 70-200 by itself: 42 vs 51.9 oz), small, and pretty sharp. The 300/4 would give you better IQ, plus the size and weight advantages, and the 70-200 TC combo gives you the flexibility of zooming, plus some extra cash. If you can afford the 300, I might go for that option.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited October 8, 2011
    Optically, a Canon EF 70-200mm (@200mm), f2.8L IS USM II and an EF 1.4x III Extender/Teleconverter is awfully good. The problem is that to maintain AF accuracy the camera slows down the AF speed, so your AF acquisition speed is compromised versus the lens alone. That combination also loses a bit of image acuity when used at less than 200mm.

    In these regards, an EF 300mm, f4.0L IS USM alone will win.

    The optimal combination for outdoor field sports is 2 - bodies with the above bare lenses. That way there's no changing lenses.

    Renting what you need for the more important events is often a good compromise.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2011
    I wouldn't mind renting, but the problem there is, I have to drive into Chicago.. and then they want almost a full deposit for the lens, which is not possible at times (especially if I want a 400/2.8.. $7500 deposit is a bit much!) Which is why I was contemplating the TC or 300.
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2011
    Jim, do you have the 70-200 Mark I or II?
  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Jim, do you have the 70-200 Mark I or II?

    I have the MkI 70-200. Plan on upgrading it with the rest of my equipment..

    Ended up buying the 1.4x TCIII yesterday. Glad I did, reach was much improved for soccer.. didn't have to crop the hell out of the images as much as usual. :)

    In the future, I'm planning on a huge big white.. Laughing.gif, so the 1.4 will come in handy. I want to buy a 200/2, so I can use it with a 1.4 and 2x TC and have a 280/2.8 and 400/4 (or even better * 1.3 for a 1D body!) Got one of the "little" parts of that equation now with the 1.4x.

    I'll post some pics from last night as soon as my card is done recovering. First time I've ever had a card go, which I think is thanks to my FW reader which was being sketchy
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
Sign In or Register to comment.