MFD on 70-200 F4L IS (+1.4TC & vs 70-300L)

Hi all and sorry for the longish post, few questions but all the same topic really.

I am considering the 70-200 F4L IS lens for motor sport and kids at the zoo type stuff, as my only lens is a 15-85mm so it is lacking reach really for those 2 scenarios.
However I would probably use it for portrait work too as I tend to use the 85mm FL of my current lens a lot, so using the 1-stop extra on the 70-200 makes sense I think(?).

I have read that there are some issues with IQ at the MFD on the F4 IS? So the main question is do people with this lens find it an issue in real use and at what point is it 'safe' to use from? I have read anything from 4feet to 2.5m, but that is a pretty big difference really.
I guess MFD only really concerns the portrait stuff as motor sport and zoo work will be much further than MFD.

Also couple of other things, if using a 1.4 III, would this change the MFD 'issue' and distances involved?
Anybody think I should instead be considering a 70-300L instead? I'm on crop so I was thinking 320mm would be fine, and a 1.4 tc later on but only if found really lacking??

Thoughts appreciated and any motor sport examples with either a 70-200 F4L IS or 70-300 L would be perfect.

Rgds,
Rich.

General thoughts:

• Remember that for portraits, resolution is not nearly as important as good color rendition and bokeh.
• The max magnification of the 70-200 f/4 is a respectable .21x (so we're talking a 7cm-sized object to fill the frame), so its not as if you'll be at MFD for portraits either.
• While teleconverters will increase the max magnification of the lens, they don't change the minimum focus distance. For human-sized subjects, it would be the same as zooming in to 100mm f/5.6 and stepping back.
• Given the shutter speeds used for daytime motorsports photos with motion blur, you end up using f/8 - f/13 apertures ... at which point all lenses look great. Other than focal length, I can't tell the difference between the photos I took with the 55-250 and the rented 100-400 at the USGP this last year, they're all very sharp when processed properly. (I did add in some local contrast enhancement in DxO to bring out details.)
• For grandstand photos, you often want an insane amount of reach, but if you're at all near the corner (we were very close to turn 12), 100mm or even 70mm is too long. I was on the short end of my 55-250 for those shots all day.
• Abeam of the cars in daylight, the AF of the 55-250 on either a 450D or 500D was more than fast enough, even for the ridiculous acceleration and deceleration of the F1 cars. Head-on at closer range, ring USM becomes necessary, but those are wide-angle shots as well.
• For 1-2 races a year, it is FAR more cost-effective to rent a long tele zoom than buy one. My normal telephoto zoom remains the 55-250 (and I feel no need for something better).

My general thoughts are actually to not try to solve the portrait problem with a telephoto zoom on a crop camera, unless you get the Sigma 50-150 OS or a 55-250 ... 70-100 mm is great for outdoor or large room portraits on a crop body, but you need a fast 40-50mm lens for anything in a normal-sized room. The build quality may drive you nuts, but the nifty fifty still does great work at f/2.2-2.5 for this kind of stuff on the mega-cheap, and the 50mm f/1.4 is nothing to sneeze at and is still very reasonable compared to the other lenses we're discussing.

As for your telephoto zoom choice, I honestly don't know whether to tell you to just get a 55-250 and see if does the job or if you need a 100-400 ... it all depends on how much telephoto you need and how often. I am betting that a simple 55-250 or the 70-200 f/4 IS will do 90% of what you need. The 55-250 is actually pretty sharp at the short end and is f/4 there as well. The color rendition of the 70-200 f/4 is really really nice though.

No EXIF data from Facebook, but here are my USGP photos. Basically anything that shows multiple cars in T12 is the 55-250 in the 55-70mm range, the rest is the 100-400. There are some UWA shots mixed in (Tamron 10-24 in our case) and a few with our RX100 as well, but those aren't the car shots.

• https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4791008772567.2196603.1216292786&type=3
• https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4801277709284.2196796.1216292786&type=3

I should add that I rely on DxO Optics Pro to make my cheap lenses like the 55-250 look good ... the biggest part is simple chromatic aberration correction (Which is offered by DPP and all RAW processors), but DxO does go the extra mile in that it sharpens each color channel in both the radial and tangential directions based on the lens profile. It honestly keeps me from having to buy more expensive lenses ... but I'm not a pixel peeper and will even accept some softness in my large prints as long as the rest of the photo is desirable.

I owned this lens for many years and only recently switched to the 70-300L.  as I recall the MFD issues are at 200mm.  so you can either take a step back or not shoot at 200mm.  it's really not a big deal.

Hey Ed, have you been happy doing the switch IQ-wise? Am thinking about changing over for a trip to the Galapagos. Or possibly just getting the 1.4 for use with the 70-200 F4 IS.

Hope I'm not straying to far from the topic!

Shorthand wrote:

General thoughts:

• Remember that for portraits, resolution is not nearly as important as good color rendition and bokeh.
• The max magnification of the 70-200 f/4 is a respectable .21x (so we're talking a 7cm-sized object to fill the frame), so its not as if you'll be at MFD for portraits either.
• While teleconverters will increase the max magnification of the lens, they don't change the minimum focus distance. For human-sized subjects, it would be the same as zooming in to 100mm f/5.6 and stepping back.
• Given the shutter speeds used for daytime motorsports photos with motion blur, you end up using f/8 - f/13 apertures ... at which point all lenses look great. Other than focal length, I can't tell the difference between the photos I took with the 55-250 and the rented 100-400 at the USGP this last year, they're all very sharp when processed properly. (I did add in some local contrast enhancement in DxO to bring out details.)
• For grandstand photos, you often want an insane amount of reach, but if you're at all near the corner (we were very close to turn 12), 100mm or even 70mm is too long. I was on the short end of my 55-250 for those shots all day.
• Abeam of the cars in daylight, the AF of the 55-250 on either a 450D or 500D was more than fast enough, even for the ridiculous acceleration and deceleration of the F1 cars. Head-on at closer range, ring USM becomes necessary, but those are wide-angle shots as well.
• For 1-2 races a year, it is FAR more cost-effective to rent a long tele zoom than buy one. My normal telephoto zoom remains the 55-250 (and I feel no need for something better).

My general thoughts are actually to not try to solve the portrait problem with a telephoto zoom on a crop camera, unless you get the Sigma 50-150 OS or a 55-250 ... 70-100 mm is great for outdoor or large room portraits on a crop body, but you need a fast 40-50mm lens for anything in a normal-sized room. The build quality may drive you nuts, but the nifty fifty still does great work at f/2.2-2.5 for this kind of stuff on the mega-cheap, and the 50mm f/1.4 is nothing to sneeze at and is still very reasonable compared to the other lenses we're discussing.

As for your telephoto zoom choice, I honestly don't know whether to tell you to just get a 55-250 and see if does the job or if you need a 100-400 ... it all depends on how much telephoto you need and how often. I am betting that a simple 55-250 or the 70-200 f/4 IS will do 90% of what you need. The 55-250 is actually pretty sharp at the short end and is f/4 there as well. The color rendition of the 70-200 f/4 is really really nice though.

No EXIF data from Facebook, but here are my USGP photos. Basically anything that shows multiple cars in T12 is the 55-250 in the 55-70mm range, the rest is the 100-400. There are some UWA shots mixed in (Tamron 10-24 in our case) and a few with our RX100 as well, but those aren't the car shots.

• https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4791008772567.2196603.1216292786&type=3
• https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4801277709284.2196796.1216292786&type=3

Yeah the 55-250 has it's merits, for a start it sits in the middle of the FL's of the other 2 lens I'm looking at! And for £115 @ DigitalRev it is certainly good value! (might be worth a punt as a stop gap).

The primary focus is the outdoor stuff, perhaps forget I mentioned portraits, its a side note really that I would probably use it for this too. It would be outdoor portraits only anyway. I bought a 430EX II to go with my 15-85 for indoors stuff, and a 30 1.4 Art will be next too- but right now I need a tele much more than a low light prime for indoors.

Your point about renting is interesting, I looked it up and a 70-300L is £52 for 3 days. This lens was £1k at xmas, so after 19 rentals I'm out of pocket and also nothing to sell come resale. Personally it doesn't add up, as I think I'll use this easily 10+ times a yr. Perhaps renting is better for the big whites costing thousands and only used 2/3 times.

Cheers

stratobill wrote:

Hey Ed, have you been happy doing the switch IQ-wise? Am thinking about changing over for a trip to the Galapagos. Or possibly just getting the 1.4 for use with the 70-200 F4 IS.

Hope I'm not straying to far from the topic!

Cheer Ed. And stratobill, no this is bang on topic. I would love to hear people's thoughts between the 2 lens.

I'm looking on Flickr but it doesn't prove much tbh, you see equally great shots from each but always different scenes, subjects, FL's, crops and different PP etc! it is hard to really form a comparison.
So thoughts from those who've owned and used both are very welcome.

You rent the lens ONCE, to see if you like using it for your sport shooting. It is cheaper than regretting a purchase.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a very sharp lens with great color and contrast. I don't know how it does with the 1.4x TC III, I have the 1.4x TC II which is fine.

The two lenses feel different in the hand, and balance differently. 70-200 is long and thin, 70-300L is shorter and fatter, and thus the 70-300L may stash in a bag better. My first lens was the 15-85mm, an excellent lens, and then this 70-200mm f/4L IS, and I am quite satisfied. The lens is featherweight and balances easily with the 60D medium-sized body.

rebel99 wrote:

TB Rich wrote:

stratobill wrote:

Hey Ed, have you been happy doing the switch IQ-wise? Am thinking about changing over for a trip to the Galapagos. Or possibly just getting the 1.4 for use with the 70-200 F4 IS.

Hope I'm not straying to far from the topic!

Cheer Ed. And stratobill, no this is bang on topic. I would love to hear people's thoughts between the 2 lens.

I'm looking on Flickr but it doesn't prove much tbh, you see equally great shots from each but always different scenes, subjects, FL's, crops and different PP etc! it is hard to really form a comparison.
So thoughts from those who've owned and used both are very welcome.

i have the 70-200 f4.0 IS and it is an excellent lens all around with top notch IQ, but if i had the choice now, i'd go for the 70-300L IS, i have heard good reviews and comments about this lens and it is great for travel especially if it is paired with a 24-70 f2.8II

cheerz.

So loosing a stop at the long end wouldn't bother you? If it was an F4 zoom then I probably wouldn't think twice, but England is always so overcast and miserable!

NancyP wrote:

You rent the lens ONCE, to see if you like using it for your sport shooting. It is cheaper than regretting a purchase.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a very sharp lens with great color and contrast. I don't know how it does with the 1.4x TC III, I have the 1.4x TC II which is fine.

The two lenses feel different in the hand, and balance differently. 70-200 is long and thin, 70-300L is shorter and fatter, and thus the 70-300L may stash in a bag better. My first lens was the 15-85mm, an excellent lens, and then this 70-200mm f/4L IS, and I am quite satisfied. The lens is featherweight and balances easily with the 60D medium-sized body.

I guess to help decide if I need the extra 100mm, I will crop some of my images for where I wanted some more reach and work out what the new FL would be. If they are all consistently over 200mm then I guess its solved for me. But if mostly under 200mm and just the odd few over, then I would be happy to save a few £'s and go 70-200 and crop as and when.

I also think that's probably sound advice to see how they feel and balance. Had I just bought a camera purely from the specs online I would be shooting a Nex 6 right now. But physically going into a store and trying them out I realised I much preferred the more tactile nature of a dSLR and an OVF is much nicer too.

Thanks.

NancyP wrote:

You rent the lens ONCE, to see if you like using it for your sport shooting. It is cheaper than regretting a purchase.

For people in rural areas, renting might make sence, but not so much when there is a good used market. If one rents a 70-200/4 IS for a week with shipping and damage waiver, they are out $100 or so guarantied. Well what if they find out they like it? Now they pay full price to buy it.

What if they buy it and don't like it? Well then they sell it and lose about the same $100. I'll take a possible loss of $100 any day over the guarantied loss of $100.

Better yet, buy used and lose nothing if you don't like it becuase you sell it for what you paid for it.

Back to the OP, I notice a little softness at close to MFD on my 70-200/4 IS but we are talking about butterfly and flower sized subjects. I haven't really done tests to see if it's just at 200mm though. For those shots, I have a macro lens though. For portraits, I never see a softness with it unless I messed something up.

jitteringjr wrote:

Back to the OP, I notice a little softness at close to MFD on my 70-200/4 IS but we are talking about butterfly and flower sized subjects. I haven't really done tests to see if it's just at 200mm though. For those shots, I have a macro lens though. For portraits, I never see a softness with it unless I messed something up.

Perfect, thanks for the reply, sounds like I wont have any issues then. I have no real desire to shoot such small items really. If I ever fancy macro I will first go with a Raynox DCR-250 and probably use that on the 15-85. Its not a big waste of money if I never use the Raynox but a dedicated 100 2.8L IS would be a much bigger waste.

Cheers.

yes.  the new zooms is as good or  better in the 70-200 range.  they are both excellent lenses but on a FF body the 70-300L is just a better choice for me.

at 200mm the 70-300L is at f4.5.  btw, I upgraded bodies from the 1ds mark III to the 5d3 which actually gained me a couple of stops so it just made sense to upgrade lenses as well.

Based on everything I've read about these two lenses, the IQ and performance are about on a par.

The really significant distinguishing factors, IMO, are that one goes to 300mm and the other is lighter and less expensive.

If you need or want 300mm, get the 70-300L.  If 200mm is enough, get the 70-200 f/4L IS.

ed rader wrote:

at 200mm the 70-300L is at f4.5.

specs list it at f5.0 from 155-228mm

okay.  but that still ain't a stop ;-).