Finally pulled the trigger and bought L-Glass for my 70D

[mikedemo]

I ordered over the weekend a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens to use with my 70D. I received it 2 days ago and all I gotta say is WOW! Its like I have a new camera. I am truly impressed the way this lens is tack sharp at all lengths and apertures. as a matter of fact I don't have to stop down to get a sharper image like I've had to before it.

Very happy so far and would appreciate any advice from folks who own this particular lens kit. Also I'm interested in an 2x extender (1st or 3rd party) as well as any of the pros and cons about the lens, techniques and so on.

Thanks.

 

[highiso]

I ordered over the weekend a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens to use with my 70D. I received it 2 days ago and all I gotta say is WOW! Its like I have a new camera. I am truly impressed the way this lens is tack sharp at all lengths and apertures. as a matter of fact I don't have to stop down to get a sharper image like I've had to before it.

Very happy so far and would appreciate any advice from folks who own this particular lens kit. Also I'm interested in an 2x extender (1st or 3rd party) as well as any of the pros and cons about the lens, techniques and so on.

Thanks.

 

[Dan Marchant]

Congrats on the lens. It is a cracker, love mine.

Gotta say I'm not a fan of the 2x extender. It really slows down the AF I was shooting Rugby with the 70-200 2.8 and wanted more reach. I got the 2x and the downgrade in the AF made it a real struggle for me. I ended up springing for the new 100-400.

 

[Dave]

This is an interesting discussion for me. I am thinking of both the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II USM and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (though I will not be able to purchase both simultaneously). The former would be for school plays and tennis, while the latter would be primarily for wildlife. While I'd like to be able to kill two birds with the same stone, there doesn't appear to be much opportunity for that in this case. Agree?

 

[Dan Marchant]

The 100-400 should be capable of doing tennis (depending on how close/far you are) but the school plays are probably a different matter. I love the optics of the 100-400 but it isn't anything like as good in low light as the 70-200 2.8. When shooting Rugby with the 100-400 I sometimes swap to the 70-200 when it gets towards late afternoon and the floodlights come on (and I just give up on trying to shoot action on the other side of the pitch).

 

[davev8]

In the UK a S/H 400mm F5.6L is only twice the price of a new 2Xiii and give by far the best results

 

[mikedemo]

I ordered over the weekend a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens to use with my 70D. I received it 2 days ago and all I gotta say is WOW! Its like I have a new camera. I am truly impressed the way this lens is tack sharp at all lengths and apertures. as a matter of fact I don't have to stop down to get a sharper image like I've had to before it.

Very happy so far and would appreciate any advice from folks who own this particular lens kit. Also I'm interested in an 2x extender (1st or 3rd party) as well as any of the pros and cons about the lens, techniques and so on.

Thanks.

 

[Le_Kilt]

The 100-400 should be capable of doing tennis (depending on how close/far you are) but the school plays are probably a different matter. I love the optics of the 100-400 but it isn't anything like as good in low light as the 70-200 2.8. When shooting Rugby with the 100-400 I sometimes swap to the 70-200 when it gets towards late afternoon and the floodlights come on (and I just give up on trying to shoot action on the other side of the pitch).

Yes, the two lenses each have their advantages, and the 70-200 f/2.8 particularly in lower light. People wanting the extra reach eventually go for the 100-400mm, it's difficult (or expensive!) to beat at 400mm. The 400mm f/5.6 can be an option, but lacks IS.

But for distant stuff that is static, an extender can be an ok option, as it will put more pixels on your duck. A 1.4x extender will give better quality and faster AF, but of course, if we're using one, it's because we want more reach, and 2x is more!

 

[Dave]

The 100-400 should be capable of doing tennis (depending on how close/far you are) but the school plays are probably a different matter. I love the optics of the 100-400 but it isn't anything like as good in low light as the 70-200 2.8. When shooting Rugby with the 100-400 I sometimes swap to the 70-200 when it gets towards late afternoon and the floodlights come on (and I just give up on trying to shoot action on the other side of the pitch).

Yes, the two lenses each have their advantages, and the 70-200 f/2.8 particularly in lower light. People wanting the extra reach eventually go for the 100-400mm, it's difficult (or expensive!) to beat at 400mm. The 400mm f/5.6 can be an option, but lacks IS.

But for distant stuff that is static, an extender can be an ok option, as it will put more pixels on your duck. A 1.4x extender will give better quality and faster AF, but of course, if we're using one, it's because we want more reach, and 2x is more!

I won't be getting an extender. Whether I get the 70-200 or 100-400 first depends on the shooting opportunity. Tennis is a mix of action shots requiring speed and personal images requiring length. While I can always crop 70-200 images (I will generally be shooting from courtside) other than cranking ISO a 100-400 lens can't be accelerated.

 

[guy schlacter]

Mt 3 cents-

The Mark iii Canon TCs are very usable on the lenses that accept them. They are decently usable for field sports and work better providing faster AF than the mark ii or older 70-200Ls.

The 1.4iii has virtuallt no noticeable degredationic AF speed or IQ. Any decent TC will provide better IQ than a digitally cropped image from the same lense without the TC shot at the same distance baring dof and apreturE and shutter speed differences.. This is very easy to prove.

They retain their resale price quite decently, so if you then buy longer native FL, you can always sell the TC.

Canon TC will give best results and i recommend with thE prestine IQ of thE ii 70-200. But, the Kenko are decent and provide extra flexibility by fitting on All lenses since they don't have the extra protrusion that sticks into the lens. The 1.4 is worth having in addition to the Canon since it can be used fast walkaround (non accepting lens of the Canon TC) and only add 1 stop light degredtion. For wildlife the AF speed will be fine with the 2xii maybe with the exception of fast BIF.

 

[Le_Kilt]

The 100-400 should be capable of doing tennis (depending on how close/far you are) but the school plays are probably a different matter. I love the optics of the 100-400 but it isn't anything like as good in low light as the 70-200 2.8. When shooting Rugby with the 100-400 I sometimes swap to the 70-200 when it gets towards late afternoon and the floodlights come on (and I just give up on trying to shoot action on the other side of the pitch).

Yes, the two lenses each have their advantages, and the 70-200 f/2.8 particularly in lower light. People wanting the extra reach eventually go for the 100-400mm, it's difficult (or expensive!) to beat at 400mm. The 400mm f/5.6 can be an option, but lacks IS.

But for distant stuff that is static, an extender can be an ok option, as it will put more pixels on your duck. A 1.4x extender will give better quality and faster AF, but of course, if we're using one, it's because we want more reach, and 2x is more!

I won't be getting an extender. Whether I get the 70-200 or 100-400 first depends on the shooting opportunity. Tennis is a mix of action shots requiring speed and personal images requiring length. While I can always crop 70-200 images (I will generally be shooting from courtside) other than cranking ISO a 100-400 lens can't be accelerated.

Hmmm, I haven't shot tennis, but from close court side I would instinctively go for 70-200 on FF. 100mm on APS-C feels too close to me (it was for edge of pitch football). Of course, even ten yards back makes a huge difference. But then a sporting event in not usual for me, so my 100-400 sees a lot more action, particularly wildlife, than the 70-200.

 

[Dave]

Mt 3 cents-

The Mark iii Canon TCs are very usable on the lenses that accept them. They are decently usable for field sports and work better providing faster AF than the mark ii or older 70-200Ls.

The 1.4iii has virtuallt no noticeable degredationic AF speed or IQ. Any decent TC will provide better IQ than a digitally cropped image from the same lense without the TC shot at the same distance baring dof and apreturE and shutter speed differences.. This is very easy to prove.

They retain their resale price quite decently, so if you then buy longer native FL, you can always sell the TC.

Canon TC will give best results and i recommend with thE prestine IQ of thE ii 70-200. But, the Kenko are decent and provide extra flexibility by fitting on All lenses since they don't have the extra protrusion that sticks into the lens. The 1.4 is worth having in addition to the Canon since it can be used fast walkaround (non accepting lens of the Canon TC) and only add 1 stop light degredtion. For wildlife the AF speed will be fine with the 2xii maybe with the exception of fast BIF.

I doubt I'll have time to swap a TC on and off when shooting tennis matches (too bad they don't have an "off" switch). Maybe during side changes. I just want to be ready for whatever kind of shot presents itself and having too much length is often worse than not having enough.

 

[TimR32225]

The 100-400 should be capable of doing tennis (depending on how close/far you are) but the school plays are probably a different matter. I love the optics of the 100-400 but it isn't anything like as good in low light as the 70-200 2.8. When shooting Rugby with the 100-400 I sometimes swap to the 70-200 when it gets towards late afternoon and the floodlights come on (and I just give up on trying to shoot action on the other side of the pitch).

Yes, the two lenses each have their advantages, and the 70-200 f/2.8 particularly in lower light. People wanting the extra reach eventually go for the 100-400mm, it's difficult (or expensive!) to beat at 400mm. The 400mm f/5.6 can be an option, but lacks IS.

But for distant stuff that is static, an extender can be an ok option, as it will put more pixels on your duck. A 1.4x extender will give better quality and faster AF, but of course, if we're using one, it's because we want more reach, and 2x is more!

I won't be getting an extender. Whether I get the 70-200 or 100-400 first depends on the shooting opportunity. Tennis is a mix of action shots requiring speed and personal images requiring length. While I can always crop 70-200 images (I will generally be shooting from courtside) other than cranking ISO a 100-400 lens can't be accelerated.

As a side note, tennis is best shot from the back court, so you are looking at the same view the opposing player has. Shooting from the side court is more or less a waste of time, by comparison.

 

[davev8]

Mt 3 cents-

The Mark iii Canon TCs are very usable on the lenses that accept them. They are decently usable for field sports and work better providing faster AF than the mark ii or older 70-200Ls.

The 1.4iii has virtuallt no noticeable degredationic AF speed or IQ. Any decent TC will provide better IQ than a digitally cropped image from the same lense without the TC shot at the same distance baring dof and apreturE and shutter speed differences.. This is very easy to prove.

They retain their resale price quite decently, so if you then buy longer native FL, you can always sell the TC.

Canon TC will give best results and i recommend with thE prestine IQ of thE ii 70-200. But, the Kenko are decent and provide extra flexibility by fitting on All lenses since they don't have the extra protrusion that sticks into the lens. The 1.4 is worth having in addition to the Canon since it can be used fast walkaround (non accepting lens of the Canon TC) and only add 1 stop light degredtion. For wildlife the AF speed will be fine with the 2xii maybe with the exception of fast BIF.

I doubt I'll have time to swap a TC on and off when shooting tennis matches (too bad they don't have an "off" switch).

you can switch this one off here

Maybe during side changes. I just want to be ready for whatever kind of shot presents itself and having too much length is often worse than not having enough.

 

[Dave]

I doubt I'll have time to swap a TC on and off when shooting tennis matches (too bad they don't have an "off" switch).

you can switch this one off here

I can't believe what an excellent bargain that is.

 

[Dave]

As a side note, tennis is best shot from the back court, so you are looking at the same view the opposing player has. Shooting from the side court is more or less a waste of time, by comparison.

Thanks, Tim. That's where I usually try to position.



Sometimes getting down on the court yields good results.

 

[davev8]

I doubt I'll have time to swap a TC on and off when shooting tennis matches (too bad they don't have an "off" switch).

you can switch this one off here

I can't believe what an excellent bargain that is.

yes i may get one for both body's.....................then i woke up and had my corn flakes

 

[TimR32225]

As a side note, tennis is best shot from the back court, so you are looking at the same view the opposing player has. Shooting from the side court is more or less a waste of time, by comparison.

Thanks, Tim. That's where I usually try to position.

Sometimes getting down on the court yields good results.

Here are a couple of mine from the 2008 Bausch and Lomb Championship at Amelia Island. This is Maria Sharapova in her semi-final match.













--
My latest project (Alaska): http://www.pbase.com/tim32225/alaska_2013
Photoblog at: http://timrucciphotography.blogspot.com/
Gallery at: http://www.timrucci.com

 

[Dave]

Here are a couple of mine from the 2008 Bausch and Lomb Championship at Amelia Island. This is Maria Sharapova in her semi-final match.

300mm prime?

 

[TimR32225]

Here are a couple of mine from the 2008 Bausch and Lomb Championship at Amelia Island. This is Maria Sharapova in her semi-final match.

300mm prime?

Canon 300 f2.8 on the 1D Mk2N. Great combo for sports back then. But the 300 is even better on the 1DX.