rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #12 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens | |
This lens presents an interesting proposition for my youth hockey photography. For the past ~10 years I have shot tournaments with the 200-400 on full frame (1DX, 1DXII, and now R6II).
I have had the chance to use a loaner 100-300 for a few tournaments and it brings faster and more precise AF in these low-light environments (ISO 6400 1/500 f/2.8 on average), but I do miss 400mm. That said, I could put the 1.4x on the 100-300 and restore that reach with the equivalent f/4 of the 200-400. Shooting at ISO 12800 is not a problem. The 100-300 is also a bit smaller and noticeably lighter, which helps after ~10 hours and maybe 30+ games per day (shooting only about one period of each game, on average). But instead of using the 1.4x, I've used the bare 100-300 on the R6II in APS-C crop mode with an effective 160-480mm range, which I really like a lot. It's only 9MP resolution, but more than enough for on-site printing 8x10" at the largest. It's also beneficial because the smaller files put less burden on the network supplying the workstations and uploading to the online viewing system.
So that's got me thinking, would it make sense to radically 'downsize' to the 70-200/2.8Z with 1.4x AND shoot APS-C crop? APS-C crop would mean 280mm = 448mm, which obviously is very close to the bare 100-300. It is a stop slower, but I think the files can handle it. In APS-C crop you do see the grain/noise a bit more than a similar composition on FF, but the final output via dye sublimation printing blurs the fine noise, so I don't think it's a significant concern.
One of the things I don't like about the 100-300 is that it has a long zoom throw similar to the 200-400 and a similar 'heavy' zoom ring feel with noticeable resistance (takes some effort to turn). What I really liked about the 24-105/2.8Z was how fast/short and light the zoom throw was. It was very easy to quickly rack from one end to the other with minimal effort, yet it didn't feel sloppy or loose. My understanding from the comments here and elsewhere is that the 70-200Z is the same/similar.
In EF I never really liked the results with the TCs on the 70-200s and never entertained this as an option. The 70-200 Z appears to totally reset performance expectations with the TCs.
So what to do? 
- R6II and 200-400 works 'good enough' and is the cheapest solution because I already have them and they're paid for. But having tried the 100-300 and experience with my other RF lenses, I know that technically better options are available.
- R6II and 100-300 either with 1.4x TC or in APS-C crop mode brings noticeably faster focus acquisition at typical tournament light levels and it holds focus on subjects noticeably more consistently. It's a ~ US$ 10-10.5K upgrade minus whatever I can get for the 200-400. That said, I still feel the 100-300 is too short for field sports, which I also do, but on FF... (where is the 200-500/4??  ).
- R6II (APS-C crop), 70-200 Z and 1.4x TC = US$ 3,500... And keep the 200-400 for field sports, for now.
Other options:
- R6II could be upgraded to R5II for greater ~17MP APS-C 'reach.' It, the 70-200 Z and 1.4x combined are still less than the 100-300 alone.
- R7 would seem to be a logical alternative simply for ~32MP APS-C that could be oversampled/downscaled (shot in JPEG-M 15MP or JPEG-S1 8MP), but lack of vertical grip is a major deal breaker (most of the photos are single player verticals). Past experience with the R7 covering sports also didn't inspire a lot of confidence, but I could try it again. I would love to see an updated R7II with faster sensor (or stacked) and UI design closer to the R5/R6 body style, including vertical grip option...
I think the 70-200 Z is something I will have to test to really know, but given how well the Z appears to handle TCs based on comments here, I'm guessing the 1.4x on a 24MP density sensor will not stress it... It's also a better fit with my existing system and provides better video options, should I need them.
So the ultimate question regarding the 70-200 Z is: black or white?
I like the idea of black, though the white 1.4x breaks the harmony of the combo...
|
