300mm lens

Dirk,

I shoot football, and i typically have a 300 f2/8 on one body, and a 70-200 on another.

This setup works great! for HS football. (or Youth for that matter) If you are shooting Prosof College, and are constrained by shooting from strictly the endzone(s), then you may need a 400+ to get the reach to the opposite end. But if you have no constarints, then a 300 does very nicely.

Here's an example

Dirk

I have a 300mm 2.8 and I had a 400mm 3.5, I don't shoot your kind of football but I think the 400mm is too long for field sports while the 300mm is just right . Think about buying a 300mm and then look for a MF 400mm 3.5 I bought mine with a scratch in the front element for $600.00 at that price you could afford both and the MF was not too much of a handicap, I would still have mine but it was stolen from my car. Here's a shot with a 300mm 2.8 . cheers Steve

John & Steve,

Thanks for your input. My access for youth and high school will be unlimited for the most part. On the college and professional levels, there might be some limits. Do you think that a 300+TC would suffice?

For high school and junior college, a 300mm f/2.8 is perfect. For the NFL and NCAA colleges a 400mm is ideal. Because I have photojournalist background, I wen with the 300mm f/2.8 and I carry 1.4x convertor, I also shoot a Nikon D3 and D2X. I will some times use the D2x on the 300 because of the DX factor. Which is good for day time events, but when I shoot at night I use the D3.

Why would 400mm be too long for field sports?

Main reasons folks use 300mm f2.8 instead of 400mm f2.8:

1. Money 2. Weight

I just picked up 300mm f2.8 IS but I do use 500mm f4 for soccer and have even tried it for baseball. 400mm would be ideal for baseball, soccer and football IMHO.

Dirk

Firstly If I had the choice of only one lens it would be a 300mm 2.8 this is the best single lens for sport, if you can afford a 70-200 a 300mm a 400mm and a 500mm that would be great but that is not practical. I have a 1.4 Tamron afs teleconverter I picked up cheaply and guess what it works great with my 300mm lens. So I would suggest a 300mm and a 1.4 teleconverter instead of the expense of a 400mm, I liked my 400 but found it too close to the 300mm so decided not to replace it when it was stolen opting to wait for a 500mm when affordable, the other lens I would suggest is a 180mm 2.8 I use this with the t.c. because it is so much smaller than the 300mm I had a 80-200 but prefer the compact size of the 180. This is a good focal length for football especially for games where you can roam the sidelines. hope this makes sense Steve

I do agree with Steve, in that the 300 2.8 IS the best all around sprots lens. The thing i don't necessarily agree with is the reliance of the TC, especially when it comes to shooting dimly lit night games with the Lens and TC.

you find the loss of that one stop (with a 1.4x TC) to be a valuable stop, and remember, that 400 f3.5 s a manual lens also. and also, a 400(2.8 or 3.5) is a technically a 600mm lens on a dx body (with 1.5 crop factor).

Dirk, what it boils down to is where you have access to what you'll be shooting. If your shooting straight from the sidelines, the 300mm can often be too much reach. So something in the 80-200 zoom range is great. In my original reply to you, i had indicated i shoot with 2 bodies, and this is the reason (1 body 300mm & 1 body 80-200

Also, Dirk, I'm sure you probably know this, but remember the monopod for that 300 or 400!

it will be another valuable tool after shooting a while

Thanks everyone for your advice/ input. The 300 it will be. I think that this lens will round out my arsenal rather nicely. I'll finish stacking my chips for the purchase and call it a day. I'll post as soon as I get some good stuff.

I know you already made your decision, but I have a 500 f/4, which is great for birds and wildlife, I thought I could use it for some sports as well. I quickly realized during baseball that is was too long and I really needed the 2.8 for night game. I bought the 300 2.8 and I love it, I'm glad I didn't buy a 400, because the 300 is much more versatile (for example, press conferences inside, sports, nature.....).

I agree that the 300 is the way to go for most football. I shoot youth, high school and professional and have found that if you are not limited to the endzone, the 400 can seem like too much. Also, while it is nice to walk into a place with the big 4 or 500, that thing is heavy compared to the 300 and when you are running up and down the sidelines, size and weight makes a difference. Also, occasionally with the 300, i will handhold it and dump the mono. This give you a tremendous amount of versatility as conditions allow for adequate shutter speed.

Are you guys discussing the use of a 300mm lens with a DSLR, where the 300mm, at least in the case of my Sony A700 becomes a 450mm F2.8. I think 300mm F2.8 full frame would be a bit short in some situations. I hand-hold the digital equivalent of a 105-300mm F2.8 (70-200mm) and have a 300mm F2.8 Sony on a Monopod (Dig. equix. 450mm F2.8). This combination with the 1.5X factor of the smaller sensor really has worked for me. I waon't be going out and getting two A900's until I can afford a 450 to 500mm f2.8. The other great advantage of the A700 is it ability tpo shoot clearly at very high ISOs as well as its Super Steady Shot stabilization system, which is profoundly improved in the A700 over the beginning A100.