Long Canon Glass

DavidTO

So, I'm gonna save up for some longer glass. Right now the longest I have is the 70-200 f4L, which I'm really happy with.

Shooting my daughter's track meet got me inspired, and I'd like to shoot more of that, maybe some cross country, maybe some soccer...and I guess I should also consider that I may want to shoot some wildlife, too, although that won't be my main focus...


So I'm looking at the 400mm f/5.6L or the 300mm f/4L IS. They're both about the same price. Comments?

Bob Bell

DavidTO wrote:

So, I'm gonna save up for some longer glass. Right now the longest I have is the 70-200 f4L, which I'm really happy with.

Shooting my daughter's track meet got me inspired, and I'd like to shoot more of that, maybe some cross country, maybe some soccer...and I guess I should also consider that I may want to shoot some wildlife, too, although that won't be my main focus...[/qoute]

IS is nice but most of the time it is only going to give you softer images having it turned on and really doesn't give you as much of a boost when dark that ISO does. My goal for wildlife, football, and baseball is 1/500 or faster and I turn up the ISO as it gets to dark for the current ISO.

The 400/5.6 is sharper than a 300/4 IS + 1.4 TC. Many can dispute this but it really is. I often shoot with a 20D with the 400 in ISO 400 and have no issues at all. it is very comparible to 2.8 lenses just AF is a ton slower. I understand the 300/4 IS is very nice on its own. So you need to figure out how many MM you need.

As you most likely know you can use a $100 dollar tamron TC with the 400 giving you 560mm @5.6 and the stop is taken out of the shutter speed.

I am going to bring my 400/5.6 to Utah if you want to try it.

As much as I don't like how soft the 100-400 can be at 400mm, it might give you the flexibility you need for track events.

Hope this helps.

mercphoto

DavidTO wrote:

So I'm looking at the 400mm f/5.6L or the 300mm f/4L IS. They're both about the same price. Comments?

Both are supposed to be great lenses. I guess first is to ask if you need 400mm, or if 300mm will be enough. That alone may answer your question as to which to buy. Secondly I'd ask if you really need IS or not.

DavidTO

mercphoto wrote:

Both are supposed to be great lenses. I guess first is to ask if you need 400mm, or if 300mm will be enough. That alone may answer your question as to which to buy. Secondly I'd ask if you really need IS or not.

Never had 300, 400 or IS on any of my lenses, so I need to suss that out, for sure. Based on my intended uses, I was hoping to get some wisdom for you all.

DavidTO

Bob Bell wrote:

I am going to bring my 400/5.6 to Utah if you want to try it.

Thanks for the info, and yes, that would be awesome.

wxwax

Sell your 70-200 f4. Get the f2.8. Get a 1.4 extender. Now you have a 280.

Then get a 400 if that's not enough.

mercphoto

DavidTO wrote:

Never had 300, 400 or IS on any of my lenses, so I need to suss that out, for sure. Based on my intended uses, I was hoping to get some wisdom for you all.

If you will always be in daylight then the 5.6 won't be an issue. However, f/4 is one full stop faster for light gathering, so if you get dim that will be an issue. I don't have a 400 but I have a 300 (and a 20D). It was decent for football but at times I wanted more lens. Soccer might be the same.

In the end you might decide the 300 is too close to your existing 70-200 to be worth the dollars. Maybe you can rent or borrow a 400?

DavidTO

mercphoto wrote:

If you will always be in daylight then the 5.6 won't be an issue. However, f/4 is one full stop faster for light gathering, so if you get dim that will be an issue. I don't have a 400 but I have a 300 (and a 20D). It was decent for football but at times I wanted more lens. Soccer might be the same.

In the end you might decide the 300 is too close to your existing 70-200 to be worth the dollars. Maybe you can rent or borrow a 400?

Mebbe.

I'm also concerned about bokeh, and backgrounds shooting these types of events, maybe even more than the speed of the lens.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Sell your 70-200 f4. Get the f2.8. Get a 1.4 extender. Now you have a 280.

Then get a 400 if that's not enough.

Not a bad idea...

Nikolai

David,
If we get together next Saturday, I think you can get your hands on that 100-400 IS you saw:-)

pathfinder

For wildlife, 300 is gonna be too short.

400 is just beginning to be adequate for some birds and wildlife. I have never met a birder who thought 400 was anywhere near long enough, even on 1.6 crop factor bodies..

300mm will be ok for most sporting events, but so will the 70-200. The Sigma 120-300f2.8 may be the ticket for sports.

f4 and f5.6 are ok for daylight, but faster is lots better come sunrise or sunset.

The 100-400 range is nice, but nobody really loves that lens. Lots of folks use it and get great images with it, but nobody loves it just the same. Trombone zoom, air pump, not tack sharp at 400, etc. But very useful day in and day out. Sigma makes an 80-400 also.

Everyone wants a fast, long lens for $300. I'm still looking for that lens too.

cmason

I tried the 100-400 L IS. It was a monster for one thing, so not a casual lens

However, for soccer meets, I found it too much lens. If I wanted to get some headshot and expressions, it was great, but usually I am looking for actions, typically full-body shots. Most of the time I am near the sidelines, about mid-field, so 200mm was perfect. If I was at one end of the field and the action at the other, 300mm was good, but 400 was rarely used. But of course, YMMV.

DavidTO

pathfinder wrote:

For wildlife, 300 is gonna be too short.
....

PF, what do you think of Sid's idea of the 2.8 with the teleconverter?

ChrisJ

I can't speak for the long lens part... But I've enjoyed having IS on my 17-85mm. It's most useful in low/interior light situations where the subject is static. It allows me to handhold at least 1-2 shutter speeds slower than normal. For sports/birding, I'm not sure it would be quite as useful.

Red Bull

Can you rent both of them for a day and use it on the day that you will be shooting track? That may be the best because then you can try both and you won't have to buy one based on guessing what you will need.

pathfinder

DavidTO wrote:

PF, what do you think of Sid's idea of the 2.8 with the teleconverter?

I know waxy has rec'd that combo before and that he seems to like it. Andy uses it from time to time also.

Using the 1.4x TC with your existing 70-200 f4 may meet your needs temporarily. You'll want a 1.4 TC sooner or later anyway, so it is a relatively inexpensive way to step up to a little longer glass.

The 70-200f2.8 IS L is composed of 18 groups of glass with 13 elements - lots of reflecting and refracting surfaces. I think the image loses contrast when used with a 1.4 TC in my hands. Maybe it works better with the 70-200f4 lens 13 groups and 16 elements.

For about the same money as the 70-200 f2.8 IS L, you can buy the 135 f2 L and the 200f2.8 L - both very nice pieces of glass that couple with a 1.4 TC very sweetly. Just a thought.

ziggy53

DavidTO wrote:

PF, what do you think of Sid's idea of the 2.8 with the teleconverter?

I'm looking at the Canon 1.4x converter for football season. It is approved for the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8 (especially beyond 120mm or so), and people seem to like it. For night games, the f2.8 is not too fast at the smaller venues where lighting gets pretty low. The zoom range is handy when you can't run down the field chasing the ball carrier. I have to imagine this is similar to track events as well.

The bokeh is pretty good at f2.8 and really does help seperate the subject from the background and other subjects fore and aft.

ziggy53

gluwater

Out of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 300 f/4 IS, and 400 f/5.6, the 300 f/4 IS is the sharpest IMHO. You can also use the 300 f/4 IS with the canon 1.4xTC while retaining AF and IS, if you wanted to go to 420mm. Personally I would prefer the 300 to the 400 for sports, the 400 f/5.6 is just to slow at 5.6 for medium to low light. The IS on the 300 will also help you in low light.

I also like Pathfinders suggestion of the 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8. But I could see where having the flexability of a zoom would be a must for sports.

I guess the best way to figure this out is start with the 1.4TC on your current lens and see if you like the reach of 280mm. That way you could see if the 300 or 400 would be to long or not. Plus a 1.4TC would be easy to sell if you don't like it. I really hate trying to make choices like this. Good Luck!

DavidTO

The 1.4x sounds sweet, plus, I could buy that now, and satisfy (at least partially) my lens lust. Something new, anyway...

Andy

pathfinder wrote:

I have never met a birder who thought 400 was anywhere near long enough, even on 1.6 crop factor bodies..

www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella shoots nearly exclusively with Canon 400 f/5.6L



Like this: http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40209680

Oh and she also will use a Tammy 1.4x on the 400 5.6 a nice combo in good light!
BTW, most of her shots are on a Rebel, or Rebel XT, proving again, it aint the camera

windoze

DavidTO wrote:

So, I'm gonna save up for some longer glass. Right now the longest I have is the 70-200 f4L, which I'm really happy with.

Shooting my daughter's track meet got me inspired, and I'd like to shoot more of that, maybe some cross country, maybe some soccer...and I guess I should also consider that I may want to shoot some wildlife, too, although that won't be my main focus...


So I'm looking at the 400mm f/5.6L or the 300mm f/4L IS. They're both about the same price. Comments?

the 300 f/4 ( which i sold to gluwater ) is a sweet lens that i wish i stil had. It however was not long enough for birds. The 400 f/5.6 is the lens to use - there is no discussion about that! Look if you can afford the more expensive lenses go fo orbigger but for pratical people like myself the best birding lens is the 400 f5/6. For soccer, i think your daughter is young, the 70-200 is awesome, yeah the IS f2.8 is better however.

So what to do??? sell the 70-200 f/4 and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and get the 1.4 TC ... you will be happy and only have to carry one lens...
then save for the 400 mm f/5.6

DavidTO

windoze wrote:

the 300 f/4 ( which i sold to gluwater ) is a sweet lens that i wish i stil had. It however was not long enough for birds. The 400 f/5.6 is the lens to use - there is no discussion about that! Look if you can afford the more expensive lenses go fo orbigger but for pratical people like myself the best birding lens is the 400 f5/6. For soccer, i think your daughter is young, the 70-200 is awesome, yeah the IS f2.8 is better however.

Birds are low on my priority list...but that all may change....

Bob Bell

DavidTO wrote:

Birds are low on my priority list...but that all may change....

David, Birds are brutal on the body. I get up at 4am every saturday to get out in the middle of nowhere to shoot birds all morning. On an average day I see 4-5 species that I have seen before, on a good day I see 1-2 that I haven't or haven't gotten great shots of.

Its pretty cool that the 400/5.6 has enough light at sunrise with ISO 400 for shots. The big dollar lenses are F4 and everyone I know that has one uses at least a 1.4x on it.

howard

DavidTO wrote:

So, I'm gonna save up for some longer glass. Right now the longest I have is the 70-200 f4L, which I'm really happy with.

Shooting my daughter's track meet got me inspired, and I'd like to shoot more of that, maybe some cross country, maybe some soccer...and I guess I should also consider that I may want to shoot some wildlife, too, although that won't be my main focus...


So I'm looking at the 400mm f/5.6L or the 300mm f/4L IS. They're both about the same price. Comments?

I'd start by adding a 1.4x to the 70-200/4. The image quality and focus are still pretty good. So you now have a maximum reach of 280 at f5.6. This allows you to see if you think the 300/4 will be long enough. If it is get one, they're very sharp and the IS will let you hand hold it at slower speeds than your 70-200/4.

If it's still too short or you are happy with the 70-200+1.4x you will have had time to work out f f5.6 is fast enough. If it is get the 400/5.6 it's outstanding quality and value for a 400. It also takes a 1.4x well to give 560.

If you want longer than 300 but need IS at 400 then get the 300/4 and use it with the 1.4x you already have to get 420/5.6 with IS. Not quite as good as the 400 bare but still very good.

I'll qualify my comments by saying that they are based on my own copies of these lenses. FWIW for birding the 400 is my first choice unless the light is very low and I don't want to use a 'pod of any type. The 300/4 is in my opinion more general purpose than the 400 due to the f4, IS and close focus. Usable for butterflies and flowers even.

Jeffro

I have the 70-200L F2.8 IS and have a 2x tc, and it works great. I've used a buddies 1.4x tc, and it's nice too. Here is a shot with my 300L f4 IS with the 2x on it, handheld.



Cropped:


This should give you some idea of how the tc will effect sharpness, even without AF and shooting at F8.

ISO 400 1/640 by the way.

jeff lapoint

Andy wrote:

www.pbase.com/zylen

Daniella shoots nearly exclusively with Canon 400 f/5.6L

True, but even she will be the first to tell ya it ain't close enough. She has the 1.4x glued to the lens and even then has to crop all the images to about 50%. If not for the added weight of the 500mm (and cost), I think she'd move up in an instant.

I use the 400 5.6 exlcusively for birds as well. I'm nowhere in the same galaxy of talent as Daniella, but I can tell you the same thing...it ain't close enough. By for flying birds...it may be the best lens ever for shooting flying birds handheld.

Then again, the OP doesn't want to shoot birds.

saurora

DavidTO wrote:

The 1.4x sounds sweet, plus, I could buy that now, and satisfy (at least partially) my lens lust. Something new, anyway...

I think buying the 1/4x now would be the smartest move. You can try it out on your 70-200 f/4 to see how adequate it might be for sports. The lens you have is a light lens and from what I hear, great for sports. You might want to trade up later to the 1.8 for more light. For the long lens, I would go with the 300 f/4 IS. Don't forget that the IS allows you to shoot in lower light gaining a couple of stops (so they say!). Plus the 300 is an f/4 vs. a f/5 for the 400mm. The thing you will be sacrificing is distance. I wouldn't worry about that. If you are not totally into wildlife, you will be able to get pretty awesome shots most of the time with a 300mm, especially when coupled with a 1.4x converter. I'm no expert by far, but the IS in my 24-105 really improves my shots...I sure wish I had it on all my lenses, especially the 200mm f/2 I just purchased. I have trouble keeping it steady (hand held) with an extender. Monopod time for me!!!

There isn't a lens around (you can afford) that will catch every shot!!!

Seefutlung

As a general rule ...IS is useless for sports. IS only stops camera shake. If your shutter is fast enough to stop action sports ...then it is fast enough to stop hand shaking.

Using IS on sports is a waste of battery and time (as IS takes a while to stabilize the pix after shutter release).

Once again, If your shutter is fast enough to stop motion on the lens end ... then it is fast enough to stop action on the camera. If you are shooting soccer say at 1/60 with IS ...the field will be sharp but the players will be blurred.

I shoot a lot of sports and all I had was the 70-200 F4 like yourself. I was about to buy the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ... probably the most ideal sports lens ever made for those with field access ... I even had it in my grubby fat hands ... but I don't shoot just sports .. so for about the same $$$ I purchased a 70-200L 2.8 and a Sigma 50-500 (Bigma). For daytime sports I use the Bigma, for nightime the Canon. So far so good. And the Bigma has such great range that I use it for so so much more and when the light drops ... out comes the legendary 70-200 L 2.8 ...

to see my stuff go to www.garyayala.smugmug.com.
the proof is in the pudding

Additionally, the 70-200 and the 50-500 are handholdable. A big plus as it opens up more photo opps.
Gary

ian408

Andy wrote:

Daniella shoots nearly exclusively with Canon 400 f/5.6L

If this is the person I think it is, she's often the smallest one with the
smallest camera at the rookery. Very often, her shots are spectacular.
So as Andy says, it's not the arrow...

That said, a combination which no one has mentioned is the 300/f2.8 and
either of the 1.4 or 2.0 TC's (with 1.4 preferred). If low light is a problem,
then this combination is one way to address it.

Ian

wxwax

ian408 wrote:

If this is the person I think it is, she's often the smallest one with the
smallest camera at the rookery. Very often, her shots are spectacular.
So as Andy says, it's not the arrow...

That said, a combination which no one has mentioned is the 300/f2.8 and
either of the 1.4 or 2.0 TC's (with 1.4 preferred). If low light is a problem,
then this combination is one way to address it.

Ian

Yabbut, you can get close to that for a lot cheaper, see if it's enough. If it's not, then go 400. No need to splash on a 300 when you can get 280 for cheap.

mercphoto

As a general rule ...IS is useless for sports.

Very correct. I'm not sure why people keep suggesting it for sports. I can also tell you that for young children playing just about any field sport that a 70-200 is NOT LONG ENOUGH. Its really not long enough even for high school football. Smaller children make the problem worse.

That said, a combination which no one has mentioned is the 300/f2.8 and either of the 1.4 or 2.0 TC's (with 1.4 preferred). If low light is a problem, then this combination is one way to address it.

I have the 300/2.8 and absolutely love it. If you can afford the bucks it is a great lens. I has the added plus of, as stated, letting you use a 1.4 for a 420/4.0 lens, or a 2.0 for a 600/5.6. Very flexible.