|Quoting geezer (Reply 1):|
I have taken photos of the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds both many times, and most were with a f 2.8 / 200 prime as my longest glass; never tried using the tele-extender. Your 70-200 will be great for a lot of shots, but for a lot more, you'll need more "length"; You kinda "threw" me with the D-700 and Canon 7D; You shoot with Nikon and Canon both ?
|Quoting bravosierra (Reply 3):|
Charley, thank you for replay. I use both Nikon (70-200 + 1,4 for pour weather conditions and/or close targets) and Canon 7D ( x1,6 crop +300f2,8 x 1,4 for shooting on long distance). Travelling to Florida with 300f2,8 is a bit complicated. Kind regards
-At maximum zoom with the 70-200mm + 1.4x on the Nikon, you'd have to take the 1.6x crop factor out of these images (seeing considerably more sky).
-At 300mm with the Canon, you would actually have to crop these photos even more by about 7%, since you're effectively at 480mm after the 1.6x crop factor. (Versus 448mm seen in the above shots.) You definitely wouldn't need the 1.4x on the 300mm.
So which is the lesser of two evils? Way more sky with a zoom lens, or slightly more crop on a fixed lens?
Personally, I would take the latter. Almost every single shot that day was at the far end of the 70-200mm lens I was using, and it appears the only time I backed it away from the stop was to shoot the American 767 doing a fly-by (which you can anticipate from the show announcer and do a quick lens-swap to something shorter). On the other hand, there's almost not a single shot which would have been trashcanned due to an extra 7% crop, except for maybe the few shots where they were flying a looser formation while passing right in front of the camera. Anything even remotely downrange would have been fine, and your f/2.8 would come real handy if it clouds up.
If it were me, I would pack the 7D, 300mm f/2.8, and your favorite walkaround lens. (If you can manage it; I know you said traveling with the 300 gets complicated.) You won't be disappointed.