Zoom 200 vs 280 vs 400 do I need that much???

[RiverCity]

Of course this is about the 70-200 (with extender) vs 100-400 lens. I have read the forums and it feels like in reality it would just be a toss up.  This is an expensive choice and I would like to make the best decision possible for my situation.

Here is my Situation

I have a 6 and 4 year old that are really getting into sports, Baseball, Football, BMX, and MotorCross.  They are just getting faster with everyday.  Almost all of their sports will be in sunny enough conditions as I live is CA. (At least for now)

I currently have a Canon 60D.

I feel most of my shots are going to be 50+ to 150 feet away.

Which lens should I choose and why?

• 70-200 with a 1.4

• 70-200 with a 2.0 - (I am worried about the focus speed of the 70-200 with a 2x. )

• 100-400

How much more (zoomed in?) am I actually going to get with 200 vs 280 vs 400 zoom? 

Would the 70-200 with a 1.4 (280) be more than enough?

Would your answer change if I upgraded to the MkIII camera?

I am a hobbiest that is having fun with the camera and looking for good quality photos I can hang on the wall in the house.

Thank you for you help.

[cicopo]

Similar question here.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1369578

AND yes the advice might change with different bodies because with the shorter lenses you may need more pixels to be able to crop & still have the image you want at a high enough resolution for a print. 

[RiverCity]

I am more curious about the Zoom advantages. This article really does not cover what you really get with 200 vs 280 vs 400

[cicopo]

The longer the max length the more it magnifies (gets you closer) the subject BUT it also narrows the field of view. If the short end isn't wide enough to get the field of view you want then you have to back up which isn't always possible. That forces a lens change, which can be an issue if you need to keep switching constantly. Your 60D makes a lens act 1.6 times longer than it's advertised length (70 mm becomes the equavelent of a 114 mm lens) & the long end of a 200 mm zoom acts like it's 320 mm long. If my link works & I hope it does use the slider to see how tight a 70-300 gets you to the subject but how narrow the field of view becomes. Ignore the pricing because it's Canon Canada's site.

http://canonlenses.ca/lens-tester?LensID=3&CategoryID=2&leftLensID=49&rightLensID=3#lensInfo

You can drag & drop the other lenses to where it says LENS IN USE. to see the differences.

[RiverCity]

That was a cool tool.  Is there a formula to understand what 200 vs 400 zoom really accomplished based upon your distance from the subject.  I am alsmost thinking that I do not need a 400 zoom and the 70-200 with a 1.4 (whihc sounds like a great way to go)  WOuld do everything that I would need. 

50. 100 and 150 foot discance will the 400 zoom be that much of an improvement?

[ebiggs1]

OK, we know you have a 60D which gives you a 1.6x advantage.  But which 70-200mm are you considering?

If it is the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS, than it is the lens to get.  Next buy some sort of PP software like PSE 12.

This is one of the best lens' made on the planet, bar none.  If it happens to be not quite enough, later you can add a Canon 1.4 tele converter.  But I suspect with PSE 12 you will be able to crop your imagaes to your satification.  Remember ony half of the photo is made in the camera.

This is what I would do if I found myself in your shoes.