Why the lens gap?

jmphotocraft · August 9, 2012

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?

mercphoto · August 9, 2012

I'm confused as to where this lens gap you are referring to is. We atart with a baseline with the 70-200/2.8. At 300 you have f/2.8 and f/4 choices, as well as the 1.4TC. At 400 you have f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 choices, as well as the 2.0 TC. I don't see a gap in lenses or choices. Instead I see choices that let you trade off dollars for aperture.

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.

jmphotocraft · August 9, 2012

Let me elaborate. My question is, once you get a 70-200/2.8, where do you go from there? (if you're not a full time pro or very rich, that is) My point is, the options aren't exciting.

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.

:

mercphoto · August 9, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Let me elaborate. My question is, once you get a 70-200/2.8, where do you go from there? (if you're not a full time pro or very rich, that is) My point is, the options aren't exciting.(

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.

jhefti · August 9, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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 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.

jmphotocraft · August 9, 2012

jhefti wrote: »

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.

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.

I doubt IS adds a lot to the cost of a lens.

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.

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...)

haha, but I am talking about f/4.

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.

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.

perroneford · August 10, 2012

I took a look at your portfolio. You have some really nice stuff there. But most of it seems to be kids under the age of 12. Why are you worrying about purchasing NBA/NFL quality glass to shoot kids this age? My 300/2.8 was paid for 2 months after I got it from my contracts. If no one is paying you to shoot at a level where you can pay off this gear in a reasonable time, then use gear commensurate with what you're earning.

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.

r3t1awr3yd · August 10, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Yes, at 300 you have f/2.8 and f/4 options, but the f/2.8 is prohibitively expensive ...

+

perroneford wrote: »

I took a look at your portfolio. You have some really nice stuff there. But most of it seems to be kids under the age of 12. Why are you worrying about purchasing NBA/NFL quality glass to shoot kids this age? My 300/2.8 was paid for 2 months after I got it from my contracts. If no one is paying you to shoot at a level where you can pay off this gear in a reasonable time, then use gear commensurate with what you're earning.

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.

=

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.

jmphotocraft · August 10, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

I took a look at your portfolio. You have some really nice stuff there. But most of it seems to be kids under the age of 12. Why are you worrying about purchasing NBA/NFL quality glass to shoot kids this age?

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.

If no one is paying you to shoot at a level where you can pay off this gear in a reasonable time, then use gear commensurate with what you're earning.

That's what I'd like to do. I'm just wondering if a "budget" 400/4 could be made.

If you can live with F4, get a 200-400 and call it good.

Umm, have you seen the price of a 200-400/4?

jhefti · August 10, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

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.

...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.

perroneford · August 10, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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.

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.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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.

Yep, that's it. Or maybe the 1.7x. I keep meaning to add one of those to my bag, but keep forgetting.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

That's what I'd like to do. I'm just wondering if a "budget" 400/4 could be made.

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.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Umm, have you seen the price of a 200-400/4?

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

Icebear · August 13, 2012

Used 300mm f/2.8. Usually some good values at KEH, B&H, or Adorama.

photodad1 · August 20, 2012

I think it is more of a price gap than lens gap.

nipprdog · August 20, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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.

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.

perroneford · August 21, 2012

nipprdog wrote: »

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.

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.

torags · August 21, 2012

Confucius say: Man shooting FX for sports has nail in shoe, also may have hole in head using prime shooting sports coming and going

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

jmphotocraft · August 21, 2012

nipprdog wrote: »

But there is NO WAY, you can do soccer justice with a 70-200 and a full frame sensor.

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.

nipprdog wrote:

There is no affordable 400 F4 answer

fixed that for you.

nipprdog · August 22, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

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.

I wasn't talking about shooting 2.8 on a 2.8 lens, I do it all the time.

I was reffering to the fact that converters simply don't work as well on zoom lenses, as they do on primes. The result is lower image quality, especially if you shoot wide open.

Even with my 1.4 on my 300 2.8, I don't shoot at f4, usually 5 or 5.6 to get better IQ. Hence my statement that he'd be lucky to get good IQ at 5.6, using a 1.4 converter on a 70-200 zoom.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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.

Agreed, I was thinking more along the lines of shooting for sales.

puzzledpaul · August 23, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

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.

What number would you consider 'affordable'?

ie for an f4 version of the 400 f5.6 L (no IS/DO)

pp

jmphotocraft · August 23, 2012

puzzledpaul wrote: »

What number would you consider 'affordable'?

ie for an f4 version of the 400 f5.6 L (no IS/DO)

I guess $1800-2000.

mercphoto · August 23, 2012

The 400/5.6 is roughly $1400. The 400/4 DO is roughly $6000. What you are wanting, it sounds like, is an f/4 version of the f/5.6 lens at less than 50% more money. I really don't see that as a realistic expectation.

perroneford · August 23, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

I guess $1800-2000.

30 years ago the 400's cost more than that. Come on man.

jmphotocraft · August 23, 2012

mercphoto wrote: »

The 400/5.6 is roughly $1400. The 400/4 DO is roughly $6000. What you are wanting, it sounds like, is an f/4 version of the f/5.6 lens at less than 50% more money. I really don't see that as a realistic expectation.

You're probably right. Oh well, I can dream. What about for 100% more money? I might stretch to $2800.

perroneford wrote: »

30 years ago the 400's cost more than that. Come on man.

Please forgive me.

nipprdog · August 23, 2012

jmphotocraft wrote: »

and the f/4 doesn't offer any value over a $475 1.4x TC.

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.

jmphotocraft · August 23, 2012

nipprdog wrote: »

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.

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.

jhefti · August 24, 2012

perroneford wrote: »

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.

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...

jonh68 · August 28, 2012

nipprdog wrote: »

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.

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.

jonh68 · August 28, 2012

jhefti wrote: »

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 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.

Qarik · August 28, 2012

in my experience if you use the latest TC and latest 70-200 (nikon or canon), the results are actually quite good. There really is not much a drop off in quality anymore. older combos might be an issue.

babowc · August 28, 2012

The phrase: "You gotta pay to play", comes to mind.

pathfinder · September 6, 2012

Sigma makes a 300mm f2.8 and a 120-300 f2.8 with OS, but you won't like the prices of new versions of them either. You might find a used Sigma 300 f2.8, or even the non IS Sigma 120-300 f2.8, somewhere near your price range ~ $1800 - $2200 if you look around a bit.

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.

Why the lens gap?

Comments