How much of an improvement would this be?

N

NebSmith12

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi, for the last year I have been using an old family members Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM lens on my 250d for motorsport photography, its fair to say I am very happy with the results but at this point I am considering perhaps to upgrade and get my own telephoto lens. I'm just curious of how much better the image quality would be of lets say a 100-400mm mkii or a 70-200mm f2.8 in comparison. Furthermore, these two are both considerations of mine and while the extra zoom given by the 100-400mm is appealing is it worth it over the 70-200. (I am a bit of a newcomer into all this business as you can tell). Thanks in advance :)
(for reference, attached is one of my favourite shots from last year, cropped to a certain degree keep in mind)
IMG_2581 (2).jpg
 
To a large extent, this depends on what you do with the images. If you show them around on your phone, the lens will make little difference. If you are printing at A0 size, the lens becomes critical. Between these two extremes, each lens can be ideal at various sizes.
 
The Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM is a very good lens. I suggest you try one of the loan schemes to determine if the other lenses are “better”, or possibly a camera upgrade.
 
john.margetts said:
To a large extent, this depends on what you do with the images. If you show them around on your phone, the lens will make little difference. If you are printing at A0 size, the lens becomes critical. Between these two extremes, each lens can be ideal at various sizes.
Click to expand...
lets say, printed at A4 size for example?
 
Not sure what you mean by which one will give better image quality? 100-400 mk2 with give more reach but less background blur, 70-200 2.8 will give more background blur. Over to you what is more important? Reach or background blur?
 
TimHughes said:
Not sure what you mean by which one will give better image quality? 100-400 mk2 with give more reach but less background blur, 70-200 2.8 will give more background blur. Over to you what is more important? Reach or background blur?
Click to expand...
let me rephrase my question, what advantage would the 70-200mm f2.8 give me over the current f4 :) comparing the same reach
 
TimHughes said:
Better performance in low light and more background blur.
Click to expand...
Also, the 100-400mm at over 300mm is going to give better quality than if I were to crop and imag from the 70-200mm right? So in this essence the longer lens will be better at the longer zooms
 
NebSmith12 said:
Also, the 100-400mm at over 300mm is going to give better quality than if I were to crop and imag from the 70-200mm right? So in this essence the longer lens will be better at the longer zooms
Click to expand...
If you are cropping a lot then this should be a very simple and obvious answer. Leave 2.8 lens for portraits, events, etc.
 
Whether film or digital, I've always taken the view: crop and be damned.

I find that the more I fill the frame, the more immediate the impact, which is, usually, what I want.

Vintage Alvis sports car Leamington Spa.jpg
 
TimHughes said:
Better performance in low light and more background blur.
Click to expand...


Yes to the first point but probably no to the second - for motorsport, you'll often be stopped down to get a slow enough shutter speed for effective panning. In the OP's position, I'd add the longer lens to the kit rather than upgrading the 70-200.
 
Aperture is recorded in the exif data which should be readable by your processing software or go to the file in Windows explorer and look at the properties.
 
It looks like the f/stop ranges between 10 and 20, does that sound plausible?
 
NebSmith12 said:
It looks like the f/stop ranges between 10 and 20, does that sound plausible?
Click to expand...


Yes, although I'd guess that the actual readings would be f/11 and f/22 (being the full stop options), although I believe that some lenses/bodies do allow pretty much any aperture setting.

As Lee says, if you're shooting that stopped down, the faster lens is unlikely to help you as much as the longer option.
 
Just to revive this thread, how would the 70-300mm IS USM compare to the 100-400mm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top