70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC vs 300 f4 for flashed football

I already own the 70-200 IS II and I generally shoot daytime soccer and nighttime (flashed) football. For most of the football fields I shoot at the f/4 would not be sufficient, but since I normally shoot flashed football the f/4 should be fine.

I am looking to get additional reach and the 300/400 2.8 lenses are out of my price range. Would I be better off using the 70-200 with the 1.4 TC or the 300 f/4? Will one focus better than the other? What about IQ?

That depends on the extender you use. If you use a 1.4x II on the 70-200 2.8L IS II, you should get about equal IQ between the two lenses. Some might say the 300/4 might win by just a hair, but I can't personally attest to that.

I think it comes down to whether or not you need the zoom. If you do, then that's your choice. If not, then the prime. Even if the IQ is slightly better on one than the other, it will do you no good if the shot isn't properly framed.

I think the 1.4x III would focus better then the 1.4x II with the 70-200 II.

I would think the 70-200 +1.4x would be a better combo because the 300mm f4 can hunt a bit for low light high school football. If the problem happens with the 70-200 + 1.4x you can take the 1.4x off then focus at 2.8 and crop.

Cozmocha wrote in post #13651998
I think the 1.4x III would focus better then the 1.4x II with the 70-200 II.

Why?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …r-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

That doesn't say that the version III provides better AF than version II. Plus, the 70-200 2.8 IS II doesn't fall under the "IS II Lenses" mentioned in there. They're talking about the newer, longer telephotos like the 300 IS II and larger. This was discovered by someone a couple months ago when talking about the new III extender. I can't remember which thread it was in, though.

Edit: Found the thread... https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=13394714&p​ostcount=8

From personal real-world experience, the 1.4x II does very well with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 7D. I have no problem shooting swim meets with it and having it keep up. There are a few more missed focus shots than I would have gotten without the extender, but that's expected with any TC in the real world with fast moving subjects. Nothing has come out yet to my knowledge, to include testing by anyone, to show the 1.4x III to be any better than the 1.4x II in terms of AF.

Oops.. The article I found did not specify IS II super tele lenses so I assumed they were talking about the 70-200mm IS II also.

Shot a lot of low-light HS football this past season with a 300mm f/4; never had a problem with the focus hunting on a 1D3. The 300mm is superbly sharp and lighter than the 70-200 IS. IQ and AF tracking with the 1.4x are going to be severely reduced in low-light situations. Why not just get a Sigma 120-300 if you're uncertain about the f/4? They can be picked up for $1500-$2000 used.

Last summer I shot some drag boat races with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. I tried using the 2X II Extender and had to remove it because I was so close to the boats (even the outside lane boat) the FOV was too narrow at 140mm.

Observation with the extender: The combination had a much slower time locking on focus. Tracking in AI Servo was never a problem even with all boats speeding towards me at speeds exceeding 100 MPH.

I have a 300mm f/4 lens but usually reach for the 70-200 and the f/1.4 extender if I want the extra focal length. The combination is much more versatile. The loss in IQ is minimal and certainly not noticeable in my prints.