canon 400mm... f2.8 vs f4.0 DO

<p>OK, the economy sucks, but the Glass still costs. I don't have a large budget, but I do shoot soccer and I need a lens with better reach. 300mm is awesome, but still gets quite noisy and pixeled when heavily cropped. I need to go to a 400mm. The 100-400mm f4-f5.6 IS is a great lens(got one already)...for anything BUT sports. Not fast and colors bleed alot if trying to use in high light conditions. I have noticed a severe price contrast in the f4.0DO and the f2.8 (IS or not). The f4.0DO is in my grasp, but am I just going after a 'soft' picture again. I am on the verge of getting some notice from people that 'pay money'. Soft photos don't cut it. I need sharp. SO if anyone can honestly tell me that the f4.0 DO will provide the same caliber photos (i.e. SHARP) as the f2.8, then please speak out I know the f4.0 will provide a greater depth of field, but I can live with that. I just want SHARP at shutters of 640/1000 plus.</p>

<p>I'd say you need a 300mm f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter. That would give you both a 300 f/2.8 and a 420mm f/4 that would be very sharp. It's also cheaper than either of the 400mm options you propose. The 400 f/2.8 is a monster, very heavy and expensive. If you can live without IS and don't mind buying used, I have seen some 400 f/2.8 non-IS lenses for sale within your budget. Combine that with a 1.4x converter and a good monopod and you'd have both the 400mm f/2.8 and a 560mm f/4.</p>

<p>Joseph<br>

the difference between these lenses is nothing to do with sharpness I'm sure the F4.0 is plenty sharp. The difference is in those extra 2 stops, if your living requires that you get the picture whatever the conditions then you need the 2.8 but frankly if you have to ask the question you probably don't need it. The pros of the smaller lens price and size probably outweigh the cons, remember it's nothing to do with sharpness it's all about light gathering abilities. The other thing to take in to consideration is the look of the shot there is a big difference between a 400mm shot at F2.8 and one at F4.0, but frankly at these apertures there is little margin of error. My advice would be to buy the F4. and use it till it limits you enough to force the investment for a F2.8 probably better than the other way around . The other thing to consider is the size,and weight of a 400mm 2.8 it is not a lens for casual shooting and unless you have a good lock not something you want to keep in the car trunk all the time<br>

Steve</p>

<p>there are a few things I didn't see in your post, what time of day are you shooting? Are you shooting day time or HS at night, indoors or outside? Also what body are you using? Which 300mm are you shooting with currently. What ISO are you shooting at?</p>

<p>Also depending on how much you crop out and then how big you try to enlarge it you are going to get a softer looking image.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>there are a few things I didn't see in your post, what time of day are you shooting? Are you shooting day time or HS at night, indoors or outside? Also what body are you using? Which 300mm are you shooting with currently. What ISO are you shooting at?</p>

<p>Also depending on how much you crop out and then how big you try to enlarge it you are going to get a softer looking image.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David; I shoot MLS games at Qwest Field. Even at night the light is very good, when ESPN is covering the games, better. I try to keep my ISO as low as I can, but I use the entire range. I can say for evening games, typically around 800-1600 I am using a Canon 1D mkII, and a 300mm f4 IS. I use a good monopod. Additionally I carry another 1D with a 70-200 on a Black Rapid Strap cross the chest. I have tried the extenders, but aside from the increased stops, they get quite slow. Since I shoot for a web media company, there is little to no budget, But that relationship has brought some opportunities that do deliver cash. Ultimately I am trying to get shots all the way across the pitch of action in the opposite goal without having to crop too heavily. If you look in my photo gallery in this site you can see the style of photos that I take. What I am hoping to learn is whether one copy delivers sharper images than the other? I appreciate everyone's input and idea's.</p>

<p>Joseph, I'm not a sports shooter but would your money not be better invested in a different camera body? You will get far better high ISO shots out of a 1D Mk3 with a little more scope for cropping too. Also, with it's better high ISO performance you could then perhaps make use of a 400mm f5.6 (a very sharp lens and a much cheaper 400mm lens compared to the DO and f2.8)</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

<p>Thanks Joseph. With all that info I think I could write a book on my response, but I won't.</p>

<p>I'm not sure on the ISO on your 1D MarkII as I shoot Nikon. So I'm not sure on the ISO quality at the higher speeds. As for the 300 f4, I'm not a big fan. I have always known the f2.8 large tele to have better glass and functionality. But I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Also with the extenders I have heard of cases were there is a mismatch with the lens and an extender, and the end results or soft images. I have been told that people have sent their lenses in to the manufacturer and had them matched to an extender. I have never done it so I don't know personally.</p>

<p>Personally what I would do is look at renting a 300mm f2.8, 400 f2.8 and even maybe a 400 f4 and see what you like.<br>

<a href="http://www.samys.com/">Sammy's Camera</a><br>

<a href="Borrow Lenses.com">Borrow Lenses.com</a><br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/for-all">Lens Rentals.com</a></p>

<p>Here are a few that I know of, and see for yourself. You could also try renting a newer body and pairing it with your 300mm f4 and see what you get. You may just need a newer body that functions better at higher ISO speeds.</p>

<p>Also if you can post an unedited image with all the meta data in tact I would interested in seeing what what you are talking about. Seeing an unedited image a lot of times helps me a little better. I might be able to see something else for you to think about.</p>

<p>David</p>

 

<p>Joseph--Looking at your pictures, I think you are faced with an almost impossible task at the distances you are required to cover without something like a 600mm lens. The fact that you shoot for the web and not for print makes the task slightly easier, however. I never covered major league anything but I was a Local paper sports photographer for several years. I have done a lot of badly lit soccer and football games at night and I had to bring home to the editor printable pictures. I could not shoot the other end of a night football game and get anything useful, however, I had full sideline access and could get close enough to the action to get good pictures part of the time with an EF 70-200 2.8L. I did a lot of work behind the end zone, behind the basketball court or behind the goal where the 70-200 was quite adequate. I also have a 100-400 and in summer in good light outdoors shooting swimming I get pictures that don't bleed(you may have to crop extensively where such bleed may be evident). I don't use IS. Even then I use 800 ISO and a 2000th because I can see the sharpness when I dead stop action at that speed. I don't know a lot about the 400do having never used one but in addition to the newspaper I owned my own photo business. I could never, ever make a business case to move to a fixed focus 400 lens(I get a lot closer at times and use 100mm and in between a lot and required zoom) costing what the DO does. You get 400 with your current lens, you are shooting for the web where it is hard to see the quality difference between your current lens and the do. In addition you are getting one stop. How many sales are you going to have to make in order to cover the 3700 dollar incremental difference between the two lenses? How many pictures do you shoot? I usually shot sixty or seventy per game and I found I could get close enough to the action to easily do that in a football game quarter. Look at the lenses used at a Red Sox game. Most of them are quite long and very heavy and mostly white. I have a 5D and when I get desperate inside a badly lit indoor pool I use it instead of 1.6 crop bodies because I have had great success at 3200 ISO. When I get really desperate because of low light and high contrast(which I see in some of your pictures) I use flash as I did in very badly lit football end zones. </p>

<p>OP -<br>

Glazer's rents locally, though they don't seem to stock the 400/4 DO in rentals.</p>

<p>Joseph:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have tried the extenders, but aside from the increased stops, they get quite slow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The extender on the 300/2.8 is quite fast with autofocus. I had been shooting with a 300/4 earlier, and bought a 300/2.8 this past summer. Wow. I didn't realize just how much faster the autofocus would be. </p>

<p>The 400/4 is sharp and fast for autofocusing. Art Morris uses one for birds in flight. That said, I don't usually see pro sports photographers using them.</p>

<p>You can't go wrong with the 400/2.8. If you can afford it and the weight isn't a concern, then I'd go with that *if* that focal length won't be too long.</p>

<p>If you need 400mm, but don't want the weight of the 2.8, then the 400/4 is a good compromise. If you also need 300, the 300/2.8 combined with a 1.4x extender isn't bad. On the 1d2, 5D, and 40D, that combination focuses faster than the 300/4 by itself.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Joseph,</p>

 

<p>Despite all the doom and gloom from everybody above, there’s one fact from your post

that leaped out at me that tells me it’s unwarranted:</p>

 

<blockquote><p>Since I shoot for a web media company[…]</p></blockquote>

 

<p>If you won’t be printing, if you’ll only be posting online…save your money.

The 300 f/4 on a 1DII is either serious overkill or a true luxury, depending on how you want to look

at it. Forget the extender; just crop. Don’t fret over ISO, either; if it’s on the dial, and

if it would be nice to use it, then do so.</p>

 

<p>By the time you scale the pictures down to Web size, nobody’ll have a clue you

“only” used a 300 f/4.</p>

 

<p>Of course, if the plan is to make prints, some reevaluation might be in order, but probably only if

you plan on going above 8″ × 10″, and perhaps not even then.</p>

 

<p>If you really, truly think you need to spend a few kilobucks on a new lens, be sure to rent each

contender. It shouldn’t take more than a single outing with each to know which is best.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>What you really need is the Nikon 200-400 f4, however Canon does not make a lens like this so the 400/2.8 is the best route to go. I'd find a used one without IS. </p>

<p>I shoot soccer with a 200/2 and 400/2.8 on a 1.5x body and usually find the 200 too short and the 400 too long. </p>

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>You are an aspiring sports shooter, you will end up with a 400 f2.8. That is the tool of your trade, accept it. Do not buy a non IS 400 f2.8, they are old and unserviceable, very sharp and fast but a risk at best, a several thousand dollar paperweight at worst. You have realised the focal length you need, a 300 f2.8 and 1.4TC will focus just as fast as your current lens and give you an extra 90mm and good flexibility, it is still not a 400 2.8 though, sorry.</p>

<p>The DO will not out shoot the 2.8, if it did then the 2.8 would not sell. DO lenses do have quirks, backgrounds can look distracting and I have had some strange lining in images with DO. As you get better/sell more you will push your gear more, you will end up needing the 2.8 over the f4 anyway, buy once.</p>

<p>for what its worth, i am a sports photographer doing soccer and other outdoor sports as well, and the 400 f2.8 is amazing, it blows away all other setups i've had over the years. i use a 1d markIII and the combo is perfect. you will ultimately have to buy the 2.8, so get it when you can.</p>

<p>I just bought the 300mm 4.0L IS and I really like it. The next lens will be the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II just becouse I just love the IS.</p>

<p>Tommi Heinonen<br>

<a href="http://www.hehkulamppu.com">Mainostoimisto</a> <a href="http://www.tommiheinonen.net">Häävalokuvaaja</a> <a href="http://www.sarvikuono.com">Valokuvaaja</a></p>