rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
^ Would you use the 70-200Z with the 1.4 or 2x TC for soccer? I have not yet noticed an AF performance loss with the 1.4x on the R5II that would affect ability to cover sports action. I have not yet tried the 2x with this combo.
andbott723 wrote:
Appreciate the insights here! I haven’t picked up the RF TCs yet but I'm planning to grab the 1.4x soon. To be honest, I've kind of forgotten that TCs on the 70-200s are even possible so thanks for reminding me. I was never a fan of TCs on the EF 70-200. Only use them on the big whites where there’s obviously plenty of sharpness to spare.
I was reluctant to upgrade EF counterparts to the Zs. EFs worked for a decade, so held a “why bother” mentality. Was blown away by the sharpness on the Zs so now I'm curious how the 100-300 could be even better.
I definitely live in a really weird world using the 200-400 / 400. I primarily use them for 15-30 min at a time, almost always handheld. Waiting for specific runners to pass by, then taking off down the road for another shot at them. I played around with the 500/600 f4 v1’s but sold them off, didn’t need the reach.
I pull out the 200-400 or 400 fairly often at large outdoor community events too. Candids with big glass is not exactly the standard use case but man… those can be great shots.
At the end of the day, the 100-300 is more of a want than a need… but thinning the big white herd to future-proof against potential glass paperweights has seemed like a good idea.
...Show more →
IME there is not a significant downside to using the RF 1.4x on either the 70-200Z or 100-300. In certain situations you might see slight quality loss with the 70-200. I haven't yet observed a perceptible difference with the 100-300 with or without the 1.4x. And this is where the bare 100-300 pulls very slightly ahead of the Z + 1.4x TC combo, at least on 45MP. I also haven't yet experienced a noticeable issue in AF performance with the Z and 1.4x. In real world use, I would pick the combo best for a given situation based on other requirements, such as mobility. I've only borrowed the 2x from CPS to use with the 100-300 and RF 600/4. It certainly results in better quality images than I remember from the earlier EF 2x TCs (never tried the vIII generation), but I could perceive some sharpness loss at 600mm on the 100-300 (same with the 600/4). Not huge, but not as far ahead of the 200-400 + TC as I would have thought. Where the 100-300 & 2x is definitely better is preservation of overall image contrast. The 100-300 is a higher contrast lens than the 200-400 to begin with and handles backlighting better - less contrast loss, less apparent veiling flare. Contrast loss was always a side effect with EF TCs back when I used them, and it's also the case for the 200-400's TC. It just doesn't seem to be as significant, or noticeable, with the RF lenses.
I've owned the 200-400 since it was released and looking back, it was the perfect lens for the 1DX era of 18-20MP when one wouldn't crop super deep most of the time and instead would use optical solutions to get tighter on the action. Now in the 45MP era (at least on Canon), you can see some of its optical limitations more clearly at pixel level, which is not the case with the 100-300, which will probably handle >60MP. For so long I used 560mm for probably 50% of my field sports coverage and initially the 100-300 just felt way too short. But if you can make good use of 45MP (I'm not entirely convinced it makes a major difference at high ISOs) with a sharp lens, you can crop pretty deep and still have very usable results.
If you're mostly handholding the 200-400 and 400 already, you won't have a problem with the 100-300, which is lighter than the 200-400. I used the 100-300 at an institutional event for covering on-stage ceremonies and then afterwards, handheld, in place of a 70-200, paired with the 28-70/2, and it worked great. I didn't feel overly bogged down. At that event, I did benefit from having 300/2.8 for the on-stage happenings, but most of the time, I'm fine with the 70-200Z and adding the 1.4x, when I will need to crop more even with the TC. This was the case at a week's worth of convocation ceremonies where previously I used the 200-400 for some on-stage coverage. This year I shot from the same positions with the Z & 1.4x handheld, and just cropped in post. This was when I really noticed that the Z with TC was sharper than the 200-400. Part of the reason was that the Z's IS system provided better stabilization, and more quickly settled down, than the 200-400 on a monopod. On the first day I was skeptical about not using the 200-400, but beside the fact that the Z was optically great, I was way less tired at the end because I wasn't lugging the 200-400 around the whole time as I moved around the venue to my various shooting positions. Plus I didn't have to deal with a monopod.
I think the bottom line here is that whether you add TCs for the 70-200 or get the 100-300 (and at least the 1.4x), you can pretty safely eliminate the 200-400 from your rotation.
|
