p.1 #1 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
Hi all,
I'm typically a basketball shooter with limited outdoor soccer experience. Looking to add an appropriate teleconverter for my RF 70-200 Z -- what do the soccer shooters here recommend? Seems like 140-400 would be a more useful range, but I'm happy to save the light transmission and the cost if the opinion is that 1.4x is a more functional option.
p.1 #3 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
Personally, I would not use a teleconverter. Position yourself to where the action comes to you. You can do a lot of damage with a 70-200mm when you are in the right spot.
p.1 #4 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
2x TC no, IMO the IQ is effected to a greater extent. 1.4TC maybe... this obviously makes the rig ƒ4.0 which can be an issue depending on the amount of light. On a poorly lit high school field ƒ4 doesn't cut it. Personally I don't use either. Regardless, the reach is also a limiting factor. Heavy cropping to compensate also degrades the IQ. Soccer is one of the tougher sports to shoot but it also requires long lenses to effectively cover a match. Unfortunately doing that comes with a large price tag. If the 70-200 ƒ2.8 is all you have then as Carl mentioned, it's best to limit yourself to on coming action where you can fill the frame. I'd suggest taking a position 10 feet behind the goal line where the 18 yard box intersects.
p.1 #5 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
It's a fairly well funded D1 college, not the most spectacular lighting in the world but a step up from a typical American HS setup. Also, most games are between 1 and 4pm start times, so stadium lighting is less of an issue. I'm going to try the 1.4x and see how it goes; everything I've seen online thus far says that this particular lens-camera-TC combo doesn't conform exactly to the established wisdom on TCs, given how its kind of at the bleeding edge of technology and optical quality. I'll report back!
p.1 #6 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
If you have the 70-200 Z, then the 2.0X RF should be no problem. The lens is so sharp and the RF Extenders are so good that the combination is still really good. It's better than the RF 100-400 and probably very near the quality of the RF 100-500 L. I have that lens and have used it with both the 1.4X and 2.0X and have no complaints. Yeah the bare lens is sharper, but overall its very acceptable in my non-professional opinion. The bare lens is unbelievably sharp, so the RF Extenders don't have as much of an affect as what people are typically used to. What camera are you using? I'm using an R6 II and it works fine for me. Still, if renting both extenders is an option, then I say do that to be safe...but just based on focal length, I would think 140-400mm would be better for soccer.
p.1 #7 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
filmjuicer wrote:
If you have the 70-200 Z, then the 2.0X RF should be no problem. The lens is so sharp and the RF Extenders are so good that the combination is still really good. It's better than the RF 100-400 and probably very near the quality of the RF 100-500 L. I have that lens and have used it with both the 1.4X and 2.0X and have no complaints. Yeah the bare lens is sharper, but overall its very acceptable in my non-professional opinion. The bare lens is unbelievably sharp, so the RF Extenders don't have as much of an affect as what people are typically used to. What camera are you using? I'm using an R6 II and it works fine for me. Still, if renting both extenders is an option, then I say do that to be safe...but just based on focal length, I would think 140-400mm would be better for soccer....Show more →
Thanks! I have an R5 II. I've seen your point echoed elsewhere a few times now, basically saying that traditional rules and considerations when it comes to teleconverters and quality loss don't quite apply to this particular lens/tele/camera combo 1:1.
p.1 #9 · 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for 70-200 for outdoor soccer?
Ironbrew78 wrote:
I've been looking at the 70-200 gmii and a tele. But then I look at the 100-400....
I own the 100-400/4.5, the 70-200, and both 1.4 and 2X TCs. In terms of image quality, the 100-400 slightly outperforms the 70-200 and either TC. In terms of AF speed and accuracy, I think the 100-400 is slightly better than the bare 70-200. The 100-400 is noticeably better than the 70-200 with either TC attached. If you are shooting in unfavorable light or low contrast moving subjects, the 70-200 with TC is borderline frustrating.
