For Sports (Hockey): 2x III Extender or 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L??

Hi,

I am looking for opinions on the following:

I currently shoot my childs hockey games with an EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS II USM. I am finding that I would still like a bit more reach for some corner shots (those being the farthest away from me).

So I am wondering if I would be better served by an extender (save some money) or a separate lens (100-400mm L)?

I know with the EF 2x III Extender I lose 2 stops (new F stop of 5.6 max) and a slower AF speed. I am guessing that with the low ISO capabilities of the 5d MK III I should still be fine for shooting indoors - but wonder about the slower AF for the "fast action" shots. As well as the reduced image quality.

With the EF 100-400mm, I start at 4.5, so about the same light wise, but of course there is a substantial cost difference ($1700 vice $550).

So does anyone have any real world experience here to help steer my decision wrt the above.


Thanks


TB

You'd most likely be fine with a 1.4 and a bit of cropping, but I wouldn't get another lens. The 100-400 is great, but with the 2x, you'd have a very similar long range and the same aperture. Just go with the extender. The 2x and 70-200 2.8 II work very nicely together.

since you already own the mkII, I'd recommend getting the 2xIII....

kin2son wrote in post #14467943
since you already own the mkII, I'd recommend getting the 2xIII....

Hi Kin2son,

I see in your sig your have the extender. Is the speed of AF significantly slower, such that keeping up with skaters will be a challenge?


I see you are Australia, I'm guessing not much hockey there, but what about any other speedy activities you may have used the Extender with?


Tony

General_T wrote in post #14467992
Hi Kin2son,

I see in your sig your have the extender. Is the speed of AF significantly slower, such that keeping up with skaters will be a challenge?

Tony

Well it is definitely slower, i have only been using it with slowly moving targets. Personally with my 5D2 and this combo I don't think it's possible to catch bifs (or i am just not good enough), but skaters should be ok imo....plus you have the 5D3 which definitely helps.

You'll probably see minimum or close to no AF speed diff compared to 100-400.

I'd expect either lens to need strobes to work well, that's what I see used for the NHL around here.

I think the 2X extended does not focus fast enough for sports and I would prefer the 100-400 or the 1.4X in that order.

Finally, if you are shooting just one kid, do you really need to cover the entire rink? Why not just set up for the spots where you are likely to get a few good ones of him and call it good enough? I shoot my own kids and I can tell you that going after one kid is much easier than trying to shoot the whole team. A single hockey game should give you ten times as many shots of one kid as you can use. Shoot a whole season of games and you will have dozens of perfect shots.

What shutter speed do you need to maintain in order to get sharp photos at your child's level? I've used my 70-200mm f/4 lens with a 7D to shoot some Ontario Hockey League games, and I need to push the ISO to 6400 in order to get a usable shutter speed of 1/1000 for this level of play. The arena is pretty well-lit, too. Either the 2x extender or 100-400L is going to push you another stop to f/5.6, and if the lighting is poor to begin with you may end up pushing the ISO capabilities of even the 5D3. You may be better off cropping in post processing.

I haven't tried ice hockey yet with my new 5D3, but plan on trying both the 70-200 f/4 and 135mm f/2 lenses next season.

Here are a couple of examples with the 7D and 70-200 f/4. They needed some noise reduction in PP.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

For about the price of a used 100-400, you could get a used 7D. While it isn't technically "reach", I will have a crop camera as long as I have kids playing soccer (bigger pitch than hockey). Obviously the extender is the even cheaper route, but you lose the ability to shoot 2.8 with that awesome lens that you have.

JefferyG has a good point in that it is very difficult to cover everything. I shoot a few soccer games for my local team and have now learned that I need to decide what shot I want to get from the game and then go prepared for that.

I doubt that any of the Pros covering a game will be able to reliably get any shot they want. The superteles aren't very versatile but they will deliver amazing shots, your 70 200 will also deliver amazing shots but unfortunately not from the other end of the pitch/rink/field.

I have 1D4 and have used the 1.4 extender, 2 times and extender on the 70-200 II and 100-400 for soccer. I sold the 100-400 because it was just too slow to focus for high speed action. I rarely use the 2 times extender: it is slower to focus and less accurate than the 1.4 extender, despite the greater reach it offers.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14468025
I'd expect either lens to need strobes to work well, that's what I see used for the NHL around here.

I think the 2X extended does not focus fast enough for sports and I would prefer the 100-400 or the 1.4X in that order.

Finally, if you are shooting just one kid, do you really need to cover the entire rink? Why not just set up for the spots where you are likely to get a few good ones of him and call it good enough? I shoot my own kids and I can tell you that going after one kid is much easier than trying to shoot the whole team. A single hockey game should give you ten times as many shots of one kid as you can use. Shoot a whole season of games and you will have dozens of perfect shots.

Hi Jeffrey,

I actually do shoot all the kids as I am the volunteered team photographer. Usually I'm shooting from the penalty box and don't leave it. This way at least I don't have glass to shoot through. I guess I would prefer not to crop if its avoidable.


Thanks Again

General_T wrote in post #14470230
Hi Jeffrey,

I actually do shoot all the kids as I am the volunteered team photographer. Usually I'm shooting from the penalty box and don't leave it. This way at least I don't have glass to shoot through. I guess I would prefer not to crop if its avoidable.

Thanks Again

In that case, I like the 100-400 if you can light the shot at such a slow aperture and can afford it. I find the 100-400 has pretty fast AF, fast enough for HS sports and hockey. It is faster than the 70-200 with either TC and especially faster than the 70-200 with the 2X TC.

I see the guys who shoot the Red Wings at the Joe using either 28-300L or 100-400L lenses, so the idea that these are too slow for hockey seems to be incorrect. They do shoot strobed though.

Scott M wrote in post #14468608
What shutter speed do you need to maintain in order to get sharp photos at your child's level? I've used my 70-200mm f/4 lens with a 7D to shoot some Ontario Hockey League games, and I need to push the ISO to 6400 in order to get a usable shutter speed of 1/1000 for this level of play. The arena is pretty well-lit, too. Either the 2x extender or 100-400L is going to push you another stop to f/5.6, and if the lighting is poor to begin with you may end up pushing the ISO capabilities of even the 5D3. You may be better off cropping in post processing.

I haven't tried ice hockey yet with my new 5D3, but plan on trying both the 70-200 f/4 and 135mm f/2 lenses next season.

Hi Scott,

Like you I am aiming for a minimum of 1/1000th. This is easy now with the 5D MK III, happy to go to 12,600 ISO. Thats why I was thinking the 2x Extender would be OK at F5.6 with a high ISO, but maybe as others have said the 1.4 is fine - although with the 2x I could get some good moon shots as well!!

Tony

shadowdancer wrote in post #14470091
I have 1D4 and have used the 1.4 extender, 2 times and extender on the 70-200 II and 100-400 for soccer. I sold the 100-400 because it was just too slow to focus for high speed action. I rarely use the 2 times extender: it is slower to focus and less accurate than the 1.4 extender, despite the greater reach it offers.

Hi Shadowdancer,

Thanks. That is good to know about the 2x vs the 1.4. Funny how they are both the same price. The 1.4 would work fine for me as well - maybe better!!


Tony

JeffreyG wrote in post #14470244
In that case, I like the 100-400 if you can light the shot at such a slow aperture and can afford it. I find the 100-400 has pretty fast AF, fast enough for HS sports and hockey. It is faster than the 70-200 with either TC and especially faster than the 70-200 with the 2X TC.

I see the guys who shoot the Red Wings at the Joe using either 28-300L or 100-400L lenses, so the idea that these are too slow for hockey seems to be incorrect. They do shoot strobed though.

Point taken - thanks again!!