Expand an already loaded bag

<p >I shoot high school sports for the kids and the yearbook. In the bag, all Canon: 20D; 50D; 70-200 f2.8 IS; 24-70 f2.8; 100-400 slide zoom; EF 50mm 1:1.4; EFS 10-22 (just for fun) & 580EXII Speedlight. (Also both Canon extenders.) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Favorite and most versatile combination is the 50D with the 70-200. I bought the 100-400 slide for daytime soccer but I don’t like the images or the handling (would rather crop from the 70-200 frames). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think I need to invest in a fixed 300mm f2.8 because of the results of what fixed length lenses I have borrowed. I don’t know of any zoom that will give me 300 at f2.8 with great results. Also with a fixed 300 my 1.4 extender would let me experiment with wildlife. Suggestions on my next lens? - Paul</p>

<p>What don't you like about the images from the 100-400? It is capable of producing quite excellent results? The 300mm f/2.8 prime can be slightly sharper and work in a bit lower light, but it is extraordinarily expensive and less versatile in some ways. Seems like overkill just for shooting the high school sports...</p>

<p>There upsides and downsides to either the zoom or prime options. The prime is an excellent lens and has very good resolution. At f/2.8 it will work at lower ISO and/or faster shutter speed and/or in lower light.</p>

<p>On the other hand the flexibility of the zoom can be worth quite a bit in both of the situations you describe - sports and wildlife. In both cases you'll see people using either lens depending on the specific shooting situations. In both sports and wildlife there are quite a few situations in which 300mm might be too long or too short and you'd have to change lenses or add/subtract the TC to make it work, while with the zoom you just move the barrel.</p>

<p>I can't help but wonder whether the 300mm f/2.8 represent an efficient use of funds for shooting the high school team. Just sayin'...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I just recently bought a 300/2.8 IS, myself. Wish I had bought it sooner. I kept putting it off. After all, I had a 300/4, and it's just one stop, right? The autofocus speed on the 300/2.8 is incredible.</p>

<p>Many people think the 100-400 is a really great lens. I have taken lots of really sharp, beautiful photos with it. Try using it locked at 300mm for a game and see if you like the focal length. Then you can decide if the added ton of money is worth it for the speed you gain.</p>

<p>Just FYI, there is a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom. I've not used it, but I've seen mixed, generally positive, reviews. It can be rented if you want to try it first.</p>

<p>You could also look into a used non-IS 300/2.8.</p>

<p>If you aren't getting good results with your 100-400 for daylight soccer there is either something wrong with the lens or something wrong with your technique. The push-pull mechanism isn't my favorite in the world, but the IQ and AF speed are quite nice. The IS is a bit dated, but still useful. It's not as sharp as my 600/4 but it still gives me great images. That being said, I'd personally like to replace my 100-400 with a 300/2.8 (though more likely I'll bite the bullet on the 400/2.8), but that has more to do with speed than IQ or handling. But different courses for different courses. </p>

<p>If you do in fact need f/2.8 at 300mm, you either need a prime (Canon, tokina, and sigma all make one) or you need a sigma zoom (the 120-300 or the 200-500/2.8 ha ha ha). </p>

<p>I guess I provided too much information. I really wanted suggestions about an optimum performance/ price options for 300/2.8, and some of you responded accordingly. My question didn't mention budget. I have had a good month and am ready to invest, and don't necessarily want a compromise lens. I will continue my research. Thanks!</p>

<p>paul -- agree, the 100-400 doesn't produce the same IQ as a prime. if you're shooting in daylight it seems the 300 f 4 (IS) would be a good one to consider. the IS should give you plenty of latitude in daylight.<br>

i've heard there is a mark II version of the 100-200 coming. might be worth a look</p>

<p>i meant mark II 100-400</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 120-300/2.8, and it's a very nice lens and very sharp. The biggest problem with it, and just about any 300/2.8 is the weight. After slinging my 120-300/2.8 + 1Dm2 around for a bit, my wife's XTi + 50-500 (which is a heavy lens as well) feels like nothing.</p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>The optimum 300/2.8? Canon 300/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Buy used. If you change your mind later, you'll be able to sell it for about what you paid for it, assuming normal use and wear.</p>

<p>You may be able to pick up a third-party lens cheaper. Won't have the performance of the Canon, and you'll take a hit on resale value.</p>

<p>Eric</p>