Why the lens gap?
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
There seems to be a big gap in both Canon and Nikon lenses between the 70-200/2.8 level and the next level up. In other words, if you have a 70-200/2.8 and you want more reach without too much of a speed penalty, what do you do?
You can buy a 1.4x TC and get 280mm at f/4. Not bad, but not a ton more reach.
You can buy a 300/4, but it's not significantly better than the above, for the money.
You can buy a 100-400L or a 400/5.6L, or a 2x TC, but I think those are too slow*.
It would be great if there could be a 400mm f/4 lens that didn't cost an arm and a leg. I don't need Diffractive Optics, it's already going to be a big lens. I don't need IS/VR, shooting sports demands high enough shutter speeds, and who handholds a 400 anyway?
Argh. I am afraid my move from the 7D to the 5D3 for sports is going to come back to haunt me this fall in Soccer season. I think I see a 1.4x TC in my future, we'll see.
* Although I wonder if the latest cameras which offer clean ISO 1600 and clean or good enough ISO 3200 negate this? At least for daytime or late afternoon sports?
You can buy a 1.4x TC and get 280mm at f/4. Not bad, but not a ton more reach.
You can buy a 300/4, but it's not significantly better than the above, for the money.
You can buy a 100-400L or a 400/5.6L, or a 2x TC, but I think those are too slow*.
It would be great if there could be a 400mm f/4 lens that didn't cost an arm and a leg. I don't need Diffractive Optics, it's already going to be a big lens. I don't need IS/VR, shooting sports demands high enough shutter speeds, and who handholds a 400 anyway?
Argh. I am afraid my move from the 7D to the 5D3 for sports is going to come back to haunt me this fall in Soccer season. I think I see a 1.4x TC in my future, we'll see.
* Although I wonder if the latest cameras which offer clean ISO 1600 and clean or good enough ISO 3200 negate this? At least for daytime or late afternoon sports?
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Comments
If you want more reach without a speed penatly that requires dollars. No way around that. If you are fine with one stop of loss you have options that cost less. And if you can tolerate two stops of loss you have more options.
I will agree, however, that image stabilization on super tele's for sports is of no use. I wonder if its there for wildlife shooters.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Yes, at 300 you have f/2.8 and f/4 options, but the f/2.8 is prohibitively expensive and the f/4 doesn't offer any value over a $475 1.4x TC.
Yes, at 400mm you have f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 options, but again, f/2.8 is prohibitively expensive, and so is the f/4. f/5.6 is too slow, I think. My wish is for a more affordable 400mm f/4. I wonder how affordable it could be if it wasn't DO or IS, and maybe didn't contain the latest unobtanium elements.
I think good number of part time pros and well-off sports parents would go for such a lens. In the mean time, I guess we will just settle for a TC or a slow 400.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I have no idea how expensive a non-IS version of a lens would be, but one could take a guess by looking at the price delta, historically, between the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and IS versions as a guide. But I'm going to wager a guess that IS doesn't add a ton to the price tag of a big lens. I would guess the biggest expense in long focal length lenses is the lens itself, and that the price rises very rapidly with maximum aperture. That being said, I would not expect a non-DO non-IS 400/4 to be significantly cheaper than the DO/IS version is today.
If you do daylight sports I think the answer is simple: add the 400/5.6 to your current 70-200/2.8. If you do low light sports you gotta spend the bucks or stay home.
Unexciting? Maybe. But exciting costs bucks.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I have never shot with a 300 f/4, but I am willing to bet that the IQ is better than a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC. Most primes are better than zooms, and most zooms are better than their TC-enhanced counterparts.
I doubt IS adds a lot to the cost of a lens. But I do know that the engineering design and manufacturing precision get *much* more complicated with a wide aperture super-tele, hence the high price tag. There is no way around this, unless there is some unexpected and sustained demand that leads to new economies of scale. (Maybe you can start a viral request for all parents to buy 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 lenses for their kids' soccer games...)
On the more helpful side (hopefully), I used to shoot my kids' games with a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and it worked really well in anything but night games. It's very versatile and not outrageously expensive. In fact, I got my first professional gigs using a portfolio that was largely shot with this lens as my primary tele.
In theory I would agree, but...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Doesn't seem worth the $900 premium.
Well, in the case of the 70-200/4, it adds like $500. I'm thinking that, minus DO, and without the latest bleeding edge lens tech might make for a nice discount on a 400/4.
haha, but I am talking about f/4.
Thanks, but I've owned that lens in the past. It's very good, but it would sort of sting to buy it again. A 2x TC might make more sense than that, but I'd try the 1.4x first.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yea, the 400/2.8 is pricey. But most of the guys who NEED that lens are paying it off in a month or two of work. If you can live with F4, get a 200-400 and call it good.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
+
=
What I've been thinking this whole time.
Ask your friend's if they need to spend $2500 on a 70-200 f/2.8 and they'll say you're nuts. Ask a wedding photographer and they'll say it's impossible to live without.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Thanks, but I'm not. Like I said, the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are simply out of the question. I don't worry about buying them because it's not going to happen.
I just fear I'm going to need more reach for soccer now that my only camera is full frame, and it would be nice if I could do better than f/5.6. Guess the 1.4 TC is it.
That's what I'd like to do. I'm just wondering if a "budget" 400/4 could be made.
Umm, have you seen the price of a 200-400/4?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
...and the only guys who *need* this glass are shooting pro games under stadium lights; we won't sell our work--or even get hired, for that matter--if we can't produce reasonable images. Others may *want* a 400/2.8, but can probably get by without...
I would agree with the OP in the there are ways to trim down the prices a bit on the moderate aperture tele lenses; and maybe Canon has looked into this and determined that the cost savings wouldn't appreciably increase their sales. Or worse, would actually reduce their sales/profits on the higher end lenses. Like all markets, I'm sure there are subtleties to this one that Canon (hopefully) understands.
Ok, so then you're stuck at the 300/F4. You said you wanted a little more reach without much of a speed penalty, and that's it. If you want to DOUBLE the focal length without much of a speed penalty, then you've got to spend money.
Yep, that's it. Or maybe the 1.7x. I keep meaning to add one of those to my bag, but keep forgetting.
400mm at F4 is still a LOT of glass. And even at a budget, it would probably still be north of $4k. People who spend $4k for lenses aren't looking for compromises. They are looking for the best their money can buy. You are WELL out of consumer range at that point and into pro range.
Yea, I have. And it's why I don't have one. But if you ditch all the other stuff, and add back in what you'd be looking at spending for an alternative, then maybe it works... or maybe not.
If not here are some alternatives:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-400mm-f45-56-dg-apo-os-hsm-sigma
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/afl-12.html
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/200500mm.asp
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
We agreed to disagree once before about using a 70-200 2.8 on a DX sensor for baseball. I still say it's not enough reach, but its all about shooting preference, and style.
But there is NO WAY, you can do soccer justice with a 70-200 and a full frame sensor. Even with a 1.4 converter you won't be able to shoot at f4, because the photos won't be sharp. When using a converter, you'll be lucky if they're sharp at f5.6.
When you decide to shoot sports with a full frame sensor, and want to do it right, the only option is a 400 2.8, minimum. There is no 400 F4 answer.
Even a used 300 2.8 won't get you more reach than you had with your DX sensor, and your 70-200.
Thats why I'm still shooting my D300S with a used 300 2.8 that I bought for $2400.
http://www.knippixels.com
I agree with everything you just said except this: "Even with a 1.4 converter you won't be able to shoot at f4, because the photos won't be sharp. When using a converter, you'll be lucky if they're sharp at f5.6."
I shoot soccer at 2.8 all the time and my images are sharp enough for magazine publication. Having been a soccer coach for 19 years, I tend to have an advantage over most others because more often than not I know where the ball is going before some of the players do.
But to toss that out as an absolute is just wrong. Sorry.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I use the Nik 70/200 with a 2X EIII (300S). That TC is the only aspherical ground TC that give better edge to edge performance.
I do use FX (D700) in that combo for some sports depending on the activity and my shooting site distance
If you shoot all year, activities can reach into low light (winter time) and f4 doesn't do it. My 200/400 experience bore that out (6 mos ownership & took my financial bath).
Consider a DX cam (used 300S?), your cost of ownership on resale may be less than acquiring a new lens
5DII + 70-200/2.8II:
120 yard field, 7D + 70-200/2.8II, all taken below 125mm:
For covering a whole team in only one game, I would agree the chances of doing the team justice are slim. But for just shooting your own kids and your own kids' team over the course of a season, I think it's quite possible, as above.
fixed that for you.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I wasn't talking about shooting 2.8 on a 2.8 lens, I do it all the time.
Agreed, I was thinking more along the lines of shooting for sales.
http://www.knippixels.com
What number would you consider 'affordable'?
ie for an f4 version of the 400 f5.6 L (no IS/DO)
pp
Flickr
I guess $1800-2000.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
30 years ago the 400's cost more than that. Come on man.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
You're probably right. Oh well, I can dream. What about for 100% more money? I might stretch to $2800.
Please forgive me.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Just saw this. Sorry, but it offers a BIG advantage. As posted, converters, and zooms do not work well together. Not my opinion, just fact. A 300 f4 will give you sharp photos at 4.5, but a 70-200 with a 1.4 at f4.5 will not. Not even close.
Not flaming, just trying to help.
http://www.knippixels.com
Samples please. Because this page disagrees:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
For sports I am mostly concerned about center sharpness. I'll trade a little softness mid-frame for the ability to zoom, and $900 in savings. Now, if AF suffers, then all bets are off, but I thought the latest "Mark III" TCs addressed that.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I can't speak to the TC issues because I never use them. However, I occasionally shoot soccer games with just a 70-200/2.8, and I get a fair number of keepers. I stick close to the goal, and move around a good bit--something that is much harder to do while lugging both a 400/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. My take is not as good as with both lenses, but it is not bad.
The other issue with a 400/2.8 when covering the whole field is the very high rate of player interference. More often than not, an interesting play across the field is blocked by other players, not because I lack the reach. I certainly do get shots with this reach that I couldn't get otherwise. But I have shot several pro soccer and MLB games with just a 70-200/2.8 and the photo editors at my media outlets did not comment negatively on my take. Just something to think about when trying to justify the cost of new glass...
I guess you have to answer what you are willing to accept. These were taken with a D700, Sigma 120-300/1.4 TC at f5. If you pixel peep, a prime and TC is the best option. On a budget, a zoom and TC is a good option.
I find the same problem with using long glass and field sports too. My keeper rate isn't really that much different using long glass because players, refs get in the way. Usually, my strongest pictures take place 30 yds and in, which is useful for a 70-200 or my Sigma 120-300.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
Fast long glass is not cheap, whether made by Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss. Hey, maybe there is a reason.
Tamron does make a non-IS 200-500 ( I do like mine quite a bit ), but it is not fast at the long end.
Large apertures require big lenses, and big lenses just cost more.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin