-
Airshow Glass
Keep getting the itch for a longer reach for Airshow photos, I upgraded my lackluster AF Canon 70-300 (otherwise fantastic images below 200mm) to a second hand 70-300L which has blown me away AF wise and with the step up in image quality.
However, having not done a proper Airshow yet, I know I'm going to be short on focal length unless I crop in - bare in mind until recently I was using a 135L + 1.4x extender for my Airshow shots, which required large crops in on my 6D shots.
So here's the rub, will a 100-400L with a 1.4x give me enough reach for fuller frames at close proximity air shows, and importantly be fast enough or would something like the Tamron 150-600mm be a better bet... I realise that the 100-400II is rumoured to be coming this year, given the six of one and half a dozen of the other views on the 100-400 vs 150-600, I'm half expecting a wait till the 100-400II comes out - but in the meantime, I'd be interested in any views... And also on handling of the huge 150-600
So, crop into 100-400, or 100-400 + 1.4, or 150-600 - away ya go
-
Senior Member
I don't know a lot about these lenses, but the 100-400 + 1.4 extender won't focus on a 6D. 3rd parties extenders may focus, but operation may be erratic. Fast AF is critical for airshow shots.
I would think the 6D + 70-300L is a really good air show setup.
Dave
-
Senior Member
I recently saw photos taken with the Tamron 150-600 at the Offutt Air Force base air show and they looked really good. I'll see if I can dig up a link for some photos.
Last edited by Jayson; 07-27-2014 at 01:54 AM.
-
Member
-
Member
Another with the 6D / EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +1.4x III pairing. This is a pricey lens, but so worth it in my book.
20140621_IMG_2315-Edit.jpg by davidfranks319, on Flickr
-
Interesting stuff, thank you for sharing great aircraft shots.... How did you feel the AF was on the 70-200 with extenders ? Vs the 100-400, would you say the 100-400 IQ matches that of the 70-200 with extenders ?
I've been itching to get both 70-200 & 100-400 but compromised on a second hand 70-300 at a great price, I'd seriously consider trading the 70-300 for the much anticipated 100-400 MkII, but feel the 70-200 would get more use generally. Opinions welcome ;-)
-
Member
I haven't noticed a significant difference in AF between the two and my keeper rate is much higher with the 70-200mm. I haven't actually checked the weight difference, but my shoulders say the 70-200mm is lighter than the 100-400mm, even with an extender (that might be all in my head though, I need to weight them both). Plus, take the extender off and you have a great walk around lens for static shots - even in dimly lit hangers.
When I'm thinking about a new body or lens I'll usually rent them on a few occasions just to get a feel of how they do in different situations. Might be something you want to look into before laying down the big bucks.
Additional note on the Tamron 150-600mm: I found the stabilization to be horrendous. After the first dozen shots I turned it off and have never turned it back on.
-
Although I've never been completely tempted by third party lenses, the Tamron did give me an itch that needed scratching.... However, I've bought into Canon, sub-consciously I feel that I'm compromising not using Canon's greatest asset, it's amazing glass... It's looking like a costly future for me with both the 70-200 2.8 II IS & 100-400 (MkII hopefully) plus the inevitable big white to follow... Oh dear, I've got gas :-/
-
Member
Yeah, it never ends. My wish list is as long today as it was when I started.
-
Super Moderator
I've been playing with the 70-200 II with 2x TC as a replacement for the 100-400L. The IQ is pretty similar. The AF speed is pretty close, but I would say that the 70-200 II with 2x TC will hunt more if it loses focus. The 70-200 II plus 2x TC is heavier and more awkward than the 100-400L to hold and shoot for long periods of time. But, since I bought the 70-200 II and 2x TC, I've only used my 100-400L for local birding trips. It is still a great lens, but that may not be enough of a niche for me to keep it. Especially if I can get a lens even better suited for local birding (cough 500 or 600 f/4 II).
I still have to look at a few photos from my trip (computer almost fixed), but I am starting to lean toward the conclusion that the 70-200 ii is so good from 70-200 mm w/o the TC and close enough with the TC that it outweighs the inconveniences when compared to the 100-400L for general purpose telephoto photography. If I know I'll only be shooting at 400mm, the 100-400L still wins.
I will say I have heard the 100-400L called the perfect air show lens. But I haven't used it for that purpose yet myself.
BTW...great photos.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules