Printable View
I need advice on the best lens to take photos of track & fileld and baseball. I currently have a 7D along with a 70-200 IS 2.8 version 1.
My choices are the 100-400 zoom, new 75-300 L zoom, or I also was considering trading in the version 1 70-200 for a version 2 70-200 with extender .
Not sure wihich option woudl yield the best quality pictures. Thank you for your ideas.
MrT
The 70-200mm II at 200mm would give the best IQ
The 70-300mm at 300mm will be the sharpest
The 70-400mm at 400mm will be the sharpest.
I haven
Optically, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (original) is the worst of the 5 70-200mm Canon zooms. The first and most important question is focal length - you mention extenders, so I presume you want more reach than 200mm on your 7D. Native focal length is always better than zoom + extender, i.e. the 100-400mm at 400mm beats a 70-200mm + 2x and the new 70-300mm at 300mm beats a 70-200mm + 1.4x at 280mm (although the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + Mk III extenders comes pretty close). How much more reach do you need?
The next issue is aperture - the 70-200mm II + 1.4x III will give you 280mm f/4, whereas with either of the other lenses, you're at f/5.6 by then. Do you need that extra stop for shutter speed?
The third question is versatility. Do you need the flexibiilty of a zoom all the time? You'll get the best IQ in the telephoto range with a prime - the 300mm f/4L IS is one option, or the 400mm f/5.6L if you shoot with fast enought shutter speeds not to miss the IS feature.
The last question is budget. The truly 'best' lens would be a 200mm f/2L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS II, or 400mm f/2.8L IS II (if you're not in a hurry, that is...the last two haven't been released as of yet, but the Mk I versions of those lenses are still better than any zoom, and take an extender without much impact on IQ).
I
Hello and welcome to the forum,
I think the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II would be an excellent choice. The next best lens to purchase would be the 300mm f/2.8L IS bare and/or with extender if needed and funds allow it. This way you will have excellent optics and reach from 70mm f/2.8 all the way up to (300mm f/2.8 + 1.4X) 420mm f/4. If not then you could probably shoot most events with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II plus 1.4X and use the 2X extender in a pinch.
Or you could use what I'm using for my "Fantasy Baseball League" the 200-400mm f/4L with 1.4x extender built in. [;)]
Rich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
It should be ready for the Real Baseball League in time for Opening Day, 2013...or maybe I'm being optimistic? Not to mention that income levels approaching that of MLB players will likely be needed for this lens...
just want to mention one more lens, the 400mm 5.6, if you are ok with the focal length,it could be the best choice IMO, it
Thank you for the reply neuroanatomist. The track & field I have done there are times when the 200mm length is lacking.
The 70-100 length is nice for shooting a race but also for afterwords for team photos and after race pictures.
Aperture wise these events are mostly outdoors so I can do fine with f4 or 5.6.
My budget doesn
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT
If that's a hard limit, and assuming you'll sell your current 70-200/2.8, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + a MkII extender would likely exceed $1500 net. However, you could add either the 100-400mm or the 70-300mm L to your current kit for around $1500 (well, a little more with the recent price increases :( ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT
From an available light perspective, yes. But, also keep in mind that a wide aperture is also useful for subject isolation. Here's a (somewhat funky, but sort of relevant)example.
Do you think 300mm will be enough? You can look at your images at 200mm and crop to simulate the extra 100mm (a 300mm field of view will be 2/3 the size a 200mm FOV). If so, the new 70-300 L zoom looks like a great lens. Excellent IQ, compact, and has the advantage of weather-sealing if you want to shoot in the rain (your 7D is sealed, as is your current 70-200/2.8 IS, but the 100-400mm is not). If you need 400mm, you need it. In that case, I'd go with the 100-400mm.
My limit is not real firm at $1,500. I think I can buy a refurbished version 2 70-200 f2.8 for $2M and a converter for a total of $2,500 and I was planning on selling the version 1. I have had good luck with one refurbished lens a 17-55mm purchased last year, but it was a much smaller investment in comparison.
Your example of aperture was great!. If i did the math correctly this would give me a "reach" of 450mm (1.4 X 200mm x 1.6) on the 7D. With out the converter I would be at 320mm (200mm x 1.6).
The 75-300 in reading Brians review seems like a great lens as well, giving me a "reach" of 480mm.
So I think either of these would add between 130mm and 150mm which should be a nice improvement over the current 70-200 alone.
Would the 75-300 offer the better IQ over the 70-200 version 2 with 1.4 converter? Or is it too close to say.
The 100-400mm lense seems good but as you said is lacking the weather sealing and is getting old. Plus is seems like a huge lens when extended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT
Phrased like that, no. But that's because the 75-300mm zoom lens is a $150 cheap consumer zoom (there are a few flavors of that lens, none very good). There are also 3 flavors of 70-300mm zooms - one L-series (the one we've been discussing) as well as a non-L and a Diffractive Optics version.
The 70-300mm L @ 300mm is a little sharper than the 70-200mm II @ 280mm with the MkII extender. Honestly, in real-world use I don't think you would see any difference. The 70-200+1.4x is also a stop faster at f/4 vs. f/5.6. In terms of size, the 70-200mm + 1.4x is almost as long as the extended 100-400mm, whereas the 70-300mm L extended is shorter than the bare 70-200mm II. The other consideration is convenience - you mentioned having a use for both the 70mm and 300mm ends of the focal range, and with 70-200mm you have either that or a 98-280mm, with the need to perform three mounting operations (remove lens from body, mount extender to lens, mount extender to body or the reverse) to change between them.
The 70-300mm L is a compromise lens, but it's a very good compromise lens if you don't mind the slow/variable aperture. If you keep your existing 70-200mm f/2.8L IS along with that lens, you'll have the fast aperture when you need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT
The 75-300mm is going to win in this contest at 300mm. It will loose at anything under 200mm. Check it out.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp= 453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
Here is somthing you might be thinking about as well. The 70-200mm II is a big and heavy lens, heavier than the others you are thinking about. The 70-300mm is much more compact and portable.
Personally having shot the kids softball and baseball games with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm and the 300mm F2.8L I found the 300mm range to be best. (not comparing IQ of the lenses just length)
Thanks for the great ideas neuroantomist.
I looked at the comparison that you suggested and it was helpful to see the close comparison.
Like you, I will be shooting the kids baseball games. So knowing that 300mm works well for baseball and your ideas on the weight and size are all helpful.
Thanks HDNitehawk