Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
POTN forums are closing 31.12.2023. Please see https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1530921 and other posts in that thread for details.
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Sports 
Thread started 05 Mar 2010 (Friday) 11:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Need Advice re: 200/1.8 vs 300/2.8 vs 400/5.6

 
canonsnob
Member
48 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 05, 2010 11:22 |  #1

I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonnoob
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Mar 05, 2010 11:33 |  #2

canonsnob wrote in post #9734655 (external link)
I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary

It wouldnt be bad.. But canon does not service the 200 1.8 anymore so if anything goes down youll be out either alot of money for the fix or a very heavy, yet cool, paper weight.

Honestly, the 200 1.8 does not seem to take TCs well, but that is just from this test chart...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=2&API=2 (external link)


David W.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
H20boy
Senior Member
Avatar
611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Ft. Worth, TX - USA
     
Mar 05, 2010 11:45 |  #3

Not sure how often this has happened... coincidence? (see attachment)

Now, as for your question, If it were me, and I didn't already have the Sigma 120-300/2.8...and I had a little more money available, I'd try to find a first gen 300/2.8 non-IS, match it with a 1.4x canon TC when needed. You may have to be patient, they don't come up on the used market that often. Here is one on Ebay right now (external link), good price if you ask me.

You're in the right mindset though, 2.8 is where its at for the very best sports images.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Matt l My Galleries (external link)
5d2 l 1d3 l 24-70/2.8 l Σ 50/1.4 l 70-200/2.8 IS l Σ 120-300/2.8 l 135/2 l 15/2.8 FE l Tam 90mac

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RCB
Member
140 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Southern Califonia
     
Mar 05, 2010 11:59 as a reply to  @ canonnoob's post |  #4

The 200 1.8 and extenders gives you great flexibility but more than likely you will suffer in the IQ and AF speed dept with the 2X attached; however, if you need that range, and you are limited in what you have or can purchase, then that might be the best combo for you right now.

In my case, I went with the 300 2.8 and purchased a 7D to use as a second body. I now can roughly shoot at the equivalent of 400 2.8 when shooting night games with the 7D or use the 1.4 extender and my 1D during the day. The plus is that the 300 2.8 is a great down the court basketball lens and just about perfect for volleyball shooting from the end court up in the stands. This combo is the right choice for me now but like you if I could justify the 400 2.8 I would have one in my bag.


Robert
http://robertburgephot​o.com (external link)
Canon - 1DX Mk II | 7D Mk II | 15 f2.8 FE | 17-40 f4.0L | 24-70 f2.8L | 85 f1.8 | 135 f2.0L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 300 f2.8L IS | 500 f4.0L IS | 1.4 TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zivnuska
Goldmember
Avatar
3,686 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Likes: 654
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wichita, Kansas
     
Mar 05, 2010 13:52 |  #5

canonsnob wrote in post #9734655 (external link)
I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary

What sports do you like to shoot? At what levels? Is your shooting all daytime or do you shoot sports such as Friday night high school football that start out before sundown and extends into night?


www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com/blog (external link) = My Blog
Gear List
www.zivnuska.zenfolio.​com (external link)

"It's not tight until you see the color of the irides."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clickclickclick
Senior Member
530 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Mar 05, 2010 14:02 |  #6

I would go with the 300 2.8. But you do know you can get a 400 2.8 Non-Is for the same price as a 300 2.8 IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonsnob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
48 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 05, 2010 14:42 |  #7

Phil, I like to shoot rugby, Scottish Games field events, baseball, football--mostly college level shot outdoors. Once a year I do a night high school game.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonsnob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
48 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 05, 2010 14:43 as a reply to  @ clickclickclick's post |  #8

Luke, I haven't seen a non-IS 400/2.8 anywhere. Where should I look? Is the lens quality the same as for the IS version?

Thanks.

Gary




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canonsnob
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
48 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 05, 2010 14:44 as a reply to  @ clickclickclick's post |  #9

P.S. to Luke--why would you take the 300/2.8 IS over the 400/2.8 non-IS?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clickclickclick
Senior Member
530 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Mar 05, 2010 19:33 |  #10

canonsnob wrote in post #9735946 (external link)
Luke, I haven't seen a non-IS 400/2.8 anywhere. Where should I look? Is the lens quality the same as for the IS version?

Thanks.

Gary

canonsnob wrote in post #9735949 (external link)
P.S. to Luke--why would you take the 300/2.8 IS over the 400/2.8 non-IS?

You miss understood what I was saying. I meant to say out of the lenses you posted I would take the 300mm. But for same price I would just get the 400mm 2.8 Non-IS. Also check Fred Miranda for a 400. That is where I picked mine up.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
J.Napier
Senior Member
Avatar
886 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Washington State
     
Mar 07, 2010 00:15 |  #11

No self respecting canon snob should be without a 200 1.8 maybe even two.
All kidding aside I have a 200 1.8 and I use it all the time and with the 1.4 TC with great results and no discerable IQ loss. I do have 2x but rarely use it at all. In fact most all my Maxpreps football from last season was done with the 200 1.8 and the 1.4 TC.
I did recently see a 400 non IS on sportshooter and I do belive it is also listed on the Portland CL right now as well.If I could swing it I'd be all over it myself. And it wont cost you much more than a 200 1.8.
It is my understanding that you can still get the 1.8 repaired at certain places for some issues. All depends out what the problem is but yes it is still somewhat of a gamble.
I think the 300 2.8 may be a more versitile lens for you is what Luke is saying.
Good luck with your decsion and let us know how it turns out.


Jeff
Gear List
www.jni-ss.com / (external link)Blog (external link)
Sportshooterpage (external link) / Maxpreps (external link)
Facebook  (external link)/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,340 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
Need Advice re: 200/1.8 vs 300/2.8 vs 400/5.6
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Sports 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
3591 guests, 92 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.