sports lens.....400 f2.8 vs. 300 f2.8

<p>my dilemna is this, i can finally afford a great lens so i dont want to screw up the decision. i have always wanted the 400 f2.8 but find that for my use (sideline football and soccer, etc..), it may be too much reach and no pullback flexibility. meaning, is the 300 f2.8 more versatile for my use? i use a crop sensor 50d body but may also upgrade to a FF sensor. so, if i can afford both upgrades, what is the "dream setup"? thx for your anticipated advice.</p>

<p>chris,</p>

 

<p>Rent both and try them. It’s the only way you’ll be sure.</p>

 

<p>Also rent the 1.4x teleconverter. It’ll turn the 300 into a 420mm f/4 and should still be a monster lens.</p>

 

<p>While you’re at it, also rent a 1-series camera. The 1D is geared for sports but with a

1.3x crop factor. The 1Ds is full frame and not quite as fast as the 1D, but still quite peppy. The

<i>Sports Illustrated</i> crew will all be shooting with the 1D, and <i>National Geographic</i> the

the 1Ds. That said, the magazines could swap cameras for an assignment and the photographers

would still do great work; they’d just be working a bit harder than usual, is all.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>I would tell you 300 2.8. Its so flexible and can be used for anything. <br>

400, 600 and etc are so tight, i mean, they will close up everything. If you need a closeup you can use a 1.4 converter in a "long distance".</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>You can't beat a 400mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 setup for sports like football and soccer. If you can only choose one, go with the 300mm f/2.8. It's definitely more versatile.</p>

<p>Have you ever hefted the 400mm f/2.8?</p>

<p>Both lenses are great, but the 300mm is <em>easily </em> hand-holdable, while the 400mm is a <strong>real </strong> bear.</p>

<p>Borrow a Canon 100-400mm/3.5-5.6 and shoot with it in your typical situations at 300mm without zooming, then at 400mm.</p>

<p>You will find out what focal length you need without the considerable expense of renting big glass.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have easy access to both, but I own neither. At the long end, I own a 70 to 200F/2.8 and both MkII tele-converters.<br /><br />If I ever sink my own money into one long telephoto it will be the 300F/2.8L . . . and I will carry the 1.4MkII with me. That makes much more sense to me - the flexibility of the total kit is paramount if it is one’s own cash – maximum bang for the buck.<br /><br />By all means study the focal lengths you most often use . . . ether by renting the two or by using the 100 to 400 . . . I do that all the time . . . <br /><br />But the point is, IMO, even if it were 90% at 400mmm and 10% at 300mm . . . if you can still pull the Tv required to freeze the action at F/4 (i.e. using the 300+x1.4mkII) and mostly always you can - even under lights with ISO6400+ in most modern DSLR's . . .</p>

<p>Or even if stretched for Tv and you do require Av = F2.8 . . . then shoot at 300F/2.8 and crop post . . .</p>

<p>Thus IMO, if it is your own cash . . . the 300F/2.8 is the more logical choice - with a x1.4MkII if you are only getting one fast Telephoto lens<br>

<br />WW</p>

<p>thx all.<br>

right now i use a 120-300 f2.8 and love it. i find myself at 300 most of the time. i am not a fan of telecon's though. with my crop sensor my 300 is over 400, which is what got me thinking the 400 f2.8 prime is best for me. i really want a lightning fast lens with awesome autofocus. night games are inevitable so a body with high iso is vip as well.<br>

so at the end of the day, i have a 70-200 f2.8 already, so what lens should i add...the 300 or 400? and which body would the pros use for sports?<br>

thx again<br>

CR</p>

<p>Chris, It looks like from your last post that you are wanting someone to tell you out right what lens you need. The above post give you some really good advice on how to figure out what lens is going to be right for you. Reread the posts and give some of the advice a shot. No one can tell you which lens is going to be the best for you.</p>

<p> Find a local camera store and rent the 300mm and the 400mm. That is going to be the best and most full proof way to know. As you said in your first post "i can finally afford a great lens so i dont want to screw up the decision". So spend a little bit of that money and make the rental. If you are in CA give Samy's Camera a call. You can rent the 300mm for $55 a day and the 400mm for $100 a day + deposit (which is put say on a CC but not charged).</p>

<p><strong ><em >“It looks like from your last post that you are wanting someone to tell you out right what lens you need. . . "</em></strong><br>

<br>

Just what I was thinking. I agree 100% with Dennis - you need to SPEND some money RENTING.<br>

<br>

Your first job is to RENT the 400. <br>

<em>RENT it for a week, and carry it for a week eight hours each day</em><strong><em> for that whole week . . . </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>and then go rent the 300 (and a x1.4) and compare.</em></strong><br>

<br>

<em>WW</em></p>

 

<p>Chris:</p>

<p>What are you currently using to shoot? What focal length do you use most often?</p>

<p>If you use 400mm most often on your camera *and* you don't mind the weight, seems like the 400/2.8 is the choice.</p>

<p>I went with the 300/2.8 because I didn't want the weight. The 400/2.8 is a monster. :)</p>

<p>I bought mine used. I could sell it again for what I paid for it. Buying/selling used super telephoto lenses is far cheaper than renting them. They hold their value. Actually, given recent lens prices, I might be able to sell mine for a profit now. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p><em><strong>"What are you currently using to shoot? What focal length do you use most often?"</strong></em><br /><em></em><br>

<em>FYI: in his second post ". . . I find myself at 300 most of the time. . . with my crop sensor my 300 is over 400, which is what got me thinking the 400 f2.8 prime is best for me. . . ."</em><br>

<em>[i use a crop sensor 50d body but may also upgrade to a FF sensor]. </em></p>

<p>thx all, i appreciate the follow up responses.<br>

i did read all of the responses, and i understand, however i am too spontaneous for renting and there are no local shops that rent. i was hoping it was a "no brainer" decision from you all, so that i would feel better about rushing out to buy the 400. i have also decided to wait for the new 1d mark IV this december. i think they will make a great team. if anyone has further opinion on it, i am all ears. i would ideally like to hear from sports photographers who have been down this road before.<br>

thx again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>go get a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 and be happy. :)</p>

<p>I just sold my 300mm 2.8 which I bought new in '98 for the 1n. ....well, I shot a lot of collage ball with film then, 1.5 crop digital. Although, the 300mm works ok for the crop digital... I never enjoyed the way the image looked when compared to my film pics with the same lens. I wish, I would have bought the 400mm 2.8...as the 300mm never was quite close enough and even to close sometime...so I just used my 70-200mm. I wanted to be a sports photographer...but seemed one needs to be a photojournalist to gain access to events. I not being a political person and I never became a photojournalist and never got my 400mm. But trust me, the big boys shoot with a 400mm 2.8 and FF digital. If that is what you strive to be ... than stop side stepping around the issue and be a big boy. The images on a cropped digital and FF are different....and it is harder to use a 400mm on a FF than a crop digital w/300mm. But, the boys have talent and it shows in the images.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Chris</p>

<p>thx all, i'm done.<br>

i just bought the 400 f2.8 and a new 1D markIII to go with it.<br>

so far, its perfect, tonight is the test though at a night game with poor lighting.<br>

again, thx for the responses.<br>

CR</p>