Which lens Canon 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8

goodcrna

I'm considering the purchase of a Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens. I shoot Basketball, Hockey, Volleyball. I've also considered the 400mm f/2.8 lens. I realize that the price diff is almost double from the 300 to the 400. So is the weight difference.

Any of you that have both lenses have any recommendations/suggestions? Sample images would be great too. I'm mostly 90% leaning towards the 300 due to its potential for short hand held shooting periods. And more usablity (is that a word??) in my situation. Almost $8k for the 400 does seem daunting....:dunno .

Also, how do you transport such a large lens? My camera bag wouldn't fit the 300. Is the Canon 300 makeup lens box sufficient? I suppose one is destined to carry more than one camera bag to events:cry .

Greg
Isn't this such a tough problem to have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

John Mueller

I wish I had your problems.
Man,how I would like to shoot with either.
Good luck.

Osprey Whisperer

I'm going through the same situation. I'm leaning towards the 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter. It gives very good results for a lot less $$$$ than the 400mm...and is more flexible. It will cut your light gatehring ability by a f/stop which may be a problem in low light indoor sporting events. The extra money in the bank for the combo..is also a nice situation to have.

$8K for the 400mm ? Where have you been shopping? Would you consider buying a used lens? There are a few reliable sources that have a good supply of the 300mm f/2.8, used. Looking at around $3,000 to $3,200 for this lens. The Canon 1.4x converter can be had for under $300 just about anywhere. I'm keeping my eye open for a nice used 400mm on these sites also. Check out KEH.com to get an idea for pricing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186152&is=USA&addedTroughType=search


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183202&is=USA&addedTroughType=search


Used:

http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=13128951&SKID=CE06999024225R3&SID=newused&BID=CE&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0

http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=13128951&SKID=CE06999024225J5&SID=newused&BID=CE&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0

Good luck

MM

BBones

I have shot with the 400....no thank you. Lugging that thing around is wicked, unless you have a caddy do not plan on moving anyplace quickly. Very unwieldy also. True you can buy a gimble for it, but in shooting motorsports, time is of the essence and if I have to set up and tear down a gimble to walk 100 yards up and do it all over again I would get VERY annoyed.


Count me in for a 300 ISL 2.8 in about 2 months.

Andy

I have to toss in my vote for the 300 f/2.8 I.S. Seems much more practical for the uses you are planning on.

Don't forget to share the love when you get it

goodcrna

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

I'm going through the same situation. I'm leaning towards the 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter. It gives very good results for a lot less $$$$ than the 400mm...and is more flexible. It will cut your light gatehring ability by a f/stop which may be a problem in low light indoor sporting events. The extra money in the bank for the combo..is also a nice situation to have.

$8K for the 400mm ? Where have you been shopping? Would you consider buying a used lens? There are a few reliable sources that have a good supply of the 300mm f/2.8, used. Looking at around $3,000 to $3,200 for this lens. The Canon 1.4x converter can be had for under $300 just about anywhere. I'm keeping my eye open for a nice used 400mm on these sites also. Check out KEH.com to get an idea for pricing.

Good luck

MM

Mike,
Yes, the 1.4X converter "is" the way to go for the 300. Iceing on the cake. Didn't consider that!!!!

Used just plain makes me nervous. I'm sure there are some good buys out there. I just imagine someone getting rid of a lens that just doesn't perform correctly. To me, saving $4-600 (I know still a good chuck of change) on a $3900 lens isn't that significant to know I'm getting a new (guaranteed) lens...!!!????

I bought a used 85 f/1.2 and it is an awesome lens. It does seem to AF slower than my 70-200 f/2.8 so I (right or wrong) blame it on the used factor.

I was just guessing on the $8k for the 400. I was just assuming almost double the price for the 300.

Thanks, el al for your comments. It sure is nice to brainstorm here. If/when/tomorrow!!! I get the 300, I'll post my pics here.

Greg

DanielB

if i had your problem... i would get the 20D replacement, and a 70-200 2.8 IS with a 1.4 converter. lol then a 50mm 1.4, a 24-70 2.8L, Bigma, and a 580EX.


all i said up there is what i someday aspire to own.
soooo it may just be personal opinion.:D but...thats what i would do.


even though i was no help at all above.

i would lean towards the 300 with a 1.4

Anson

Hi Daniel and gang
am I correct in that a 1.4 converter would give a 200mm an extended reach to 280 mm?
and
at what point does one start to lose quality/etc? when using a converter on any quality lens.

Thanks

DanielB wrote:

if i had your problem... i would get the 20D replacement, and a 70-200 2.8 IS with a 1.4 converter. lol then a 50mm 1.4, a 24-70 2.8L, Bigma, and a 580EX.


all i said up there is what i someday aspire to own.
soooo it may just be personal opinion.:D but...thats what i would do.


even though i was no help at all above.

i would lean towards the 300 with a 1.4

Chase

goodcrna wrote:

Mike,
Yes, the 1.4X converter "is" the way to go for the 300. Iceing on the cake. Didn't consider that!!!!

Used just plain makes me nervous. I'm sure there are some good buys out there. I just imagine someone getting rid of a lens that just doesn't perform correctly. To me, saving $4-600 (I know still a good chuck of change) on a $3900 lens isn't that significant to know I'm getting a new (guaranteed) lens...!!!????

I bought a used 85 f/1.2 and it is an awesome lens. It does seem to AF slower than my 70-200 f/2.8 so I (right or wrong) blame it on the used factor.

I was just guessing on the $8k for the 400. I was just assuming almost double the price for the 300.

Thanks, el al for your comments. It sure is nice to brainstorm here. If/when/tomorrow!!! I get the 300, I'll post my pics here.

Greg

the 85 f1.2 just plain focuses slowly. The 70-200 IS has exceptionally fast autofocus.


For volleyball, hockey, basketball...you will find either a 200mm f1.8 or investing in some nice strobes to use with your 70-200.

a 400mm lens is just pointless indoors. I would still have a hard time using a 300mm inside a gym.

Se7enUK

Well if you have the money go for the 400 F2.8 as it is a top notch bit of kit. I also use a 70-200 as well, which gives you a great range especially with a 1.4TC.

ian408

Here's another vote for the 300 f/2.8 w/1.4x. Better all around combination.
However, if you're planning on shooting volleyball, it might be a tad too
long unless you'll be shooting from the stands.

Another benefit of the 300 is that you'd be able to easily get it into a bag
like the Lowe Pro Nature Trekker. This gets you on the plane with the
camera as carry on.

Ian

JoeL

I will have to say the 300 f/2.8 unless you are shooting outdoors like Football, or sports that require you to shoot from a greater distance.

If you are shooting Volleyball, I would reccomend the 70-200 f/2.8 thats what I use to shoot indoor Volleyball, the 300 is just too much.

The College Volleyball on my page was shot with a 80-200 f/2.8
The College Football was shot with the 400 f/2.8 and 80-20 f/2.8 on a second body. www.actionshots4u.smugmug.com

The Soccer was shot with the 300 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8.

For Basketball I use the 80-200 f/2.8 and the 300 f/2.8 on a second body.

As far as transporting the lens, I carry them in their Nikon Hardcase and put them on the camera body in the Press area or wherever they have us set-up. These (300 & 400) are too expensive in my opinion to not carry them in the secure case until needed. Its a pain sometimes carrying them in the large cases but considering the banging around I would rather keep them safe and secure. I have a cart that everything goes on to roll around. All my camera bodies and other lens are in my Tamrac Cyber-8 Backpack, this backpack is awesome and can carry everything I need for shooting sports, I keep all my extra batteries and CF cards in a Lowepro "Sideline shooter" that I wear, its also worth its weight in gold.

I have both the 300 and 400, I use the 300 lots more than the 400 for sure.
Just my opinion. Hope this helps a little.

wxwax

The answer really depends upon where you'll be shooting from. If you have media/sideline/glass access to the sports you describe, you won't need the 400. You may not even need to 300.

goodcrna

300mm f/2.8

Andy wrote:

I have to toss in my vote for the 300 f/2.8 I.S. Seems much more practical for the uses you are planning on.

Don't forget to share the love when you get it

Well, I bought the 300. The 400 is too much lens for my needs. I can at least hand hold the 300. Carple Tunnel here I come!!! It is an awesome lens. It also has a feature that allows for a preset focus point. Like at the net. Shoot other shots, crowd reactions, player bench, coaches and when the play is at the net just turn the preset focus ring and bam its in focus. Of course some major overtime will be required to pay for this new lens.

Here is a shot from the stands at my son's High School JV Hockey game...



Taken from the penalty box:



Thank you all for your words of wisdom. This is such a great resource....):

ian408

Bust out the 70-200 and shoot from the corners. Judging from the glass,
you'll need to try cleaning the glass or shooting with the lens right up
against it.

Look forward to more hockey shots.

Ian