Canon EOS 1D Mark IV vs. 300mm f2.8 vs. 200mm f2.0

[RonG]

O.K. Here's the Story. Around Christmas this year I will have about 5K to spend on equipment. I shoot a lot of sports, I mean a lot. I had an older 300 f2.8 non IS that I purchased and focus was not great so I sent it backbut noticed that a single focal length lens is limited compared to my 70-200mm zoom. Another difficulty is that a lot of sports are at night and I frequently (read always) shoot at f2.8 and 3200 iso for a 1/400 shutter speed which is frequently underexposed by up to 2 fstops depending on the field or gym. I currently have the aforementioned 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM lens so 80% of my needs are met. I have a 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens and a 50mm f1.4 lens; I have a 40D, 1D, 1D Mark 2n. So my problem isthis, It would be photography dogma to upgrade the Lens with an Uber Telephoto as mentioned above and with the $500 rebate the 200mm is only $4800 dollars until January but High ISO is my bane. I would love to have another 2fstops of light with the same noise performance and with 16mpix on a 1.3 sensor and easily 12,800 iso on the Mark IV I'm thinking upgrading the camera body may be more beneficial than getting a Faster telephoto (though I would like to have both).


What should I get. 1) 1D mark IV 2) 300mm f2.8 with 2x extender (already have 1.4x) 3) 200mm f2.0

[Jon Ruyle]

Do you really think the 1DIV is 2 stops better than the 1DIIN? I'm skeptical of that, but don't claim to really know.


The 200 f/2 gains you another stop at the expense of DOF (of course if you want a narrower DOF this is an advantage not a disadvantage) and zoom capability, while the 1DIV will gain you at least one stop for free. The 1DIV autofocus is also rated to work in 1 stop lower light.


The way I see it, the main part of the "body before lens" dogma that applies here is lifetime. In 5 years, the 200 f/2 will likely still be the best 200mm lens avaliable, while the 1DIV will be an old body one could pick up on the cheap used.


Put another way, I think if I was going to get one now and the other in five years, I would probably get the lens now (tough one, though... it sounds like the body will do you more good in the short run). If I was going to get one now and the other in six months, I would go for the body.

[Julius]

You already have a good camera body....I would invest in lenses.

[SupraSonic]

Mine 1D MK II with EF300mm F4 IS
Fast enough & sharp enough

http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-01-01.html

[Daniel Browning]

First of all: do you shoot raw or JPEG? If you shoot JPEG, then the 1D IV is a no-brainer. The processing has improved a lot, particularly in noise reduction (though it's still far behind what you can do with raw).


If you shoot raw, then the choice is a little more nuanced. First of all, you stated that the 70-200 f/2.8 meets 80% of your needs, because the fixed focal length is limited. If you spend $5k on a lens and plan to use it for 100% of the shots, then that's one thing. But if you can only use it 20% of the time (because you need zoom), then the value is much lower. So based on zoom alone I would suggest you stick with the 70-200. This is precisely the situation where Canon would benefit from having a professional 200-400 f/4, like Nikon.


Have you considered the 7D? It will blow your 1D2n out of the water when it comes to noise in low light. The only question is if you could live without the 1D features, and I bet you can't. You undoubtedly need the autofocus, FPS, controls, features, weather sealing, build, etc.


What about autofocus speed or lens quality? Does the 70-200 focus fast enough for you? Is it sharp enough? If so, those are two good reasons to buy the body instead of the lens. You would be paying $5,000 partly for things you don't need.


Another factor to consider is DOF. Would the thinner DOF of f/2 be beneficial for isolating the subject and blurring the background? Or would it be harmful due to more missed-focus shots and DOF that is too thin?


Keep in mind that even the best autofocus sensors in perfect calibration are only accurate to within 1/3 DOF at f/2.8: at f/2 they are only accurate to 1 and 1/3 DOF! In other words, it's not theoretically possible to get accurate auto focus at f/2. (Though if your print size is medium to small, you probably wont notice.)


The 1DIV will give you the ability to shoot higher ISO, which means more control over DOF, which means more shots in focus.


Although for most people I would suggest the lens, in your case I think the 1DIV make sense.

[Jon Ruyle]

Keep in mind that even the best autofocus sensors in perfect calibration are only accurate to within 1/3 DOF at f/2.8: at f/2 they are only accurate to 1 and 1/3 DOF! I

I don't know how af works, but isn't it the DOF that matters, and not the f/ number? In other words, wouldn't it be much harder on the af to take a 1:1 macro shot at f/2.8 than a picture of a mountain at f/2.8? Or do you mean f/2.8 at infinity?

[Daniel Browning]

I don't know how af works, but isn't it the DOF that matters, and not the f/ number?

The reason I specified the f-number was because the most accurate AF sensors are the f/2.8 sensors. Most of the time we use the f/5.6 sensors, which are not nearly as accurate, but I wanted to discuss the best case, which is when you have an f/2.8 lens.

In other words, wouldn't it be much harder on the af to take a 1:1 macro shot at f/2.8 than a picture of a mountain at f/2.8?

Yes, it would be harder, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

Here's a longer explanation:

Canon autofocus sensors are only accurate to 1/3 the depth of focus (which is different from depth of field). Even in the best of circumstances they are not perfectly accurate. So if you want to ensure that the shot is in focus, you have to stop down by a bit.

So if you have f/5.6 autofocus sensors, you may need to stop down to f/6.3 to account for the inaccuracy. If you are using an f/4 lens at f/4, but with f/5.6 autofocus sensors, your accuracy could be way off. If you use an f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 with f/5.6 autofocus sensors, the accuracy will be off even more.

But thankfully, Canon does provide some f/2.8 autofocus sensors. These are far more accurate, but they they still have that same 1/3 depth of focus limitation. So to operate within parameters you may need to shoot the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/3.2. But what if you have an f/2 lens, like the 200mm f/2? Well, Canon doesn't make any f/2 autofocus sensors. So if you shoot it wide open, your autofocus error can be way off.

For example, if you compare the 400mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/5.6, and shoot both at f/5.6, the f/2.8 lens will autofocus far more accurately, because it can use the f/2.8 autofocus sensors, whereas the 400mm cannot. But if you compare the 200mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8 at f/2.8, the accuracy will be the same, because they use the same sensors. But if you use the 200mm f/2 at f/2, the accuracy will still be the same, even though it needs to be higher because of the thinner depth of focus at f/2.

[Jon Ruyle]

Looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.


I knew the f/2.8 sensors were more sensitive and suspected they are more accurate, but didn't know for sure. Guess it's time to throw that 24-105 f/4 IS in the trash.

[wickerprints]

Guess it's time to throw that 24-105 f/4 IS in the trash.

Shhhh! Don't say stuff like that out loud, my 24-105/4L IS might overhear you!

[Graydon]

I purchased a used 300 f/2.8 recently but was considering a body upgrade at the time. The lens was too good a deal to pass up so that won out. From the day it arrived it's by far my favorite lens. It's nuts good for sports. It's workable depending on the lighting with the 1.4x but becomes less usable with the 2.0x. It's great if not unmatchable with no converter.


I understand the 200 f/2.0 is a fantastic lens but you have that focal length covered as you noted.


Get the 300 f/2.8, skip the 2.0x and don't look back. If you have the cash and plan on shooting daylight splurge and pick up the drop in polarizer filter.