artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
| p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Canon 100-300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF? | |
rscheffler wrote:
To the 100-300 owners out there, what are your thoughts about it with the 2x TC now that you've had time to use it?
I have a 100-300 and both TCs on loan from CPS, with the intent of using it for sports coverage in the manner I would my current EF 200-400.
After a night football game, my initial impressions of the 100-300 were that it was great with the 1.4x TC but less great with the 2x. Unfortunately for the way I like to cover football (positioned 30-40 yards downfield from the line of scrimmage, or in the end zone), use of the 2x on the 100-300 was practically mandatory most of the game. And indeed, ratio of 2x use compared to 1.4x was 3:1. 100-300 without TC was 0 images.  It's simply too short for my liking, at least as my primary football lens.
With the 1.4x TC, images were sharp with great contrast and probably better (sharper) than the 200-400 bare, though I'm only on 24MP, which both lenses might out resolve. Nor have I compared the two side by side. 100-300's AF was noticeably faster/snappier than the 200-400, and IS was more stable when I tried it outside of game action, which wasn't surprising, given it's a 10 years newer lens.
With the 2x TC, it appeared sharpness was great up to around 500mm, then started to lose consistency. Sometimes it was very good, but other times it was off. At or near 600mm I noticed more shot to shot focus inconsistency/drift than I recall with the 200-400 with internal 1.4x TC. But the 100-300 with 2x did appear to produce a snappier, higher contrast image. At the wide end of the zoom range, with the 2x, performance seemed to be closer to that of the longer end with the 1.4x (which was good).
I kind of know where this is going. The lens I'll want, whenever it becomes available, will be the 200-500/4, if I would otherwise use the 100-300 75% of the time with the 2x at football games. Maybe initial use at a night game wasn't fair to the lens, considering it was primarily used with the 2x, but it was a situation where I already use the 200-400 with 1.4x a lot, in addition to nicely lit day games.
I did like having 200-600 range vs. 280-560. The extra at the wide end was welcome in a few instances where I hadn't had time or inclination to switch to the 1.4x (more on that below).
The biggest annoyance was the need to swap in/out external TCs. It's been ~10 years since I've done that and was reminded how much I disliked it. Also that I needed to make sure I zipped up my waist pack before running down the sidelines to change positions between plays (in the past I lost TCs this way). But just the whole fumbling around with swapping them in/out was a PITA. And the 2x I had from CPS didn't 100% lock onto the 100-300. The first time it happened I got a manual focus warning and a bunch of lockup issues, black viewfinder, etc. After that, every time I re-mounted the 2x I had to torque it back and forth to be sure the locking pin mated with the 100-300, which it sometimes did not do initially. It just meant more lost time and less desire to swap it out for the 1.4x, unless action was within ~20 yards of the end zone.
At least for me, if primarily used for football (and other field sports) the 100-300 would be a lot more interesting with a built-in 1.4x to flip in/out while keeping an external 1.4x mounted almost permanently (assuming Canon would design such an RF lens to allow internal and external TC use, as is possible with the EF 200-400). This would make it a useful 140-420/4 with external, bumping it to ~200-600/5.6 by flipping in the internal.
Yes, it appears it's not quite the right lens for my preferred manner of covering football. Next up will be some hockey where I will probably use it bare, or with the 1.4x, and possibly in APS-C crop mode. Bare in APS-C would give 160-480, which is a better range than I have now with 200-400 bare on FF in a slightly lighter, smaller package. Add the 1.4x and I could shoot FF with 140-420/4 where the additional 60mm at the wide end over the 200-400 could be useful. 224-672mm with the TC in APS-C would be great for little kids on Olympic size ice pads... Here it really does seem to be a more versatile arena/court sports lens.
Anyway, I'm left a bit underwhelmed with initial results at and around 600mm. It's probably more the focus inconsistency that is bothering me at the moment. Has anyone else experienced similar?...Show more →
The first thing I did when I bought mine was slap the 2x on it and shot a portrait session on the beach at 600mm/5.6. I intentionally left it at or near 600mm/5.6 and I was very happy with what I saw on the R5, especially since I've never been fond of using a 2x until mirrorless arrived. I haven't shot action with the 2x, but If I was shooting field sports at 600/5.6 in low light I would definitely want to use the R3 for that. I'm sure it would perform well with the R3, but I probably wouldn't want buy this this lens specifically to use 75% of the time with the 2x for action. I would rather use a 500 or 600 prime combined with a 70-200 on another body. I would have zero problems though using my 100-300 100% of the time with the 1.4x, for action.
I'm sure if Rob sees this he could hire the well trained Kenzie and test her running at him with the R3 at 600/5.6. I'm sure it will perform very well. This is where the R3 would shine over the R5 or R6II.
I agree for field sports the 200-500 f/4 will be a highly desired lens to replace the 200-400. Though, there are plenty of sports where I would happily use the 100-300 like baseball, hockey, tennis, motocross, water polo, track and field, etc.
As for the flickable external TC, I believe Canon has something in the works but it won't be released for a while.
|
), but it replaced my 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and may replace the 135 1.8 when i shoot weddings...I'll be testing it out for weddings on August 24th. 
