Long Telephoto for Sports -- 300 vs 400

KED · January 20, 2008

I shoot sports that are mostly played on +/-100 yard fields -- soccer, lacrosse and football. I presently have a Canon EF 300 f/2.8 and have taken some of my very best shots with it. But now I have a few luxuries that I didn't have when I bought that lens -- (a) a press credential, (b) two camera bodies and (c) no more worries that my kids would be mortified if I showed up with a really HUGE lens (which literally did deter me when I compared the 300 and the 400 for the first time at B&H).

I'm entering my most important shooting season with the following strategy (note: I'm a first-timer in NCAA Div. I sports): long lens paired with Mk II N on monopod to shoot at distance (mid-line toward goal, endline back toward oncoming action from midfield or, highly cropped, all the way to the far goal), plus 70-200 paired with Mk III for close-in stuff (being prepared, without an assistant, to carefully drop the monopod rig to the ground!).

I don't have time to borrow/rent a 400 to try it out, so if I had it to do all over again, would I have been better off with the 400 in the first place? If you were in my place now would you trade the 300 for a 400? Or if you had just won the lottery, would there be a reason to have both?

Mod: If you like this better in Shots>Sports, feel free.

ivar · January 21, 2008

KED wrote:

Mod: If you like this better in Shots>Sports, feel free.

Generally the 'shots' forums are more for sharing shots taken; Even though this is about sports-lenses, I think you placed it in the right spot

I'm not much of a sports-shooter myself, but I'm sure that someone will be by to help you shortly.

rich56k · January 21, 2008

Hi KED,

Not sure about your lens question,
but I'd like to offer an option for your homepage....
Noticed your statcounter 'counter' is left justified in its position (in FireFox & Safari anyways) if you go into customize>footer in your control panel
and add:

between the 7th & 8th lines of the statcounter code it will center the position of the counter - not sure if you want to - but I went thru the same thing..thought I'd share what was shared with me to change the position...

plus I have mucho lens envy :cry -that 300/2.8 would be sweet for my dragracing coverage -

someday ....

rich56k

KED · January 21, 2008

rich56k wrote:

Hi KED,

Not sure about your lens question,
but I'd like to offer an option for your homepage....
Noticed your statcounter 'counter' is left justified in its position (in FireFox & Safari anyways) if you go into customize>footer in your control panel
and add:
<div align="center">
between the 7th & 8th lines of the statcounter code it will center the position of the counter - not sure if you want to - but I went thru the same thing..thought I'd share what was shared with me to change the position...
plus I have mucho lens envy :cry -that 300/2.8 would be sweet for my dragracing coverage - <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" > someday ....

rich56k

Thank you for the suggestion -- I like it! I, myself, don't mess around in there -- someone is helping me with it (someone I found through this forum actually), but I'm going to take you up on it.

claudermilk · January 21, 2008

KED wrote:

(c) no more worries that my kids would be mortified if I showed up with a really HUGE lens (which literally did deter me when I compared the 300 and the 400 for the first time at B&H).

Again, not very helpful, but isn't the ability to mortify the kids one of the perks of being the parent?

KED · January 21, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

Again, not very helpful, but isn't the ability to mortify the kids one of the perks of being the parent?

Well now that you mention it . . . let me modify my original question: Does anyone know of a lens BIGGER than the 400???

Nah, the original question stands.

JohnEBongo · January 21, 2008

KED, to address your 300/400 question, first I would say that having both would be a little overkill in my opinion. I currently use the 400 but have shot with the 300 as well. Both produce great images so the real factor is whether or not you need/want the extra reach of the 400. I like to get tight, up-close shots like this http://www.johnebongophotography.smugmug.com/photos/220770771-L.jpg
and the 400 makes that a little easier. One last thing to consider is that the 400 is heavy and can a monster to carry around a field, even mounted on a monopod. Hope this helps.........John

SavedByZero · January 21, 2008

1.4x teleconveter?? Bueller??

KED · January 21, 2008

JohnEBongo wrote:

KED, to address your 300/400 question, first I would say that having both would be a little overkill in my opinion. I currently use the 400 but have shot with the 300 as well. Both produce great images so the real factor is whether or not you need/want the extra reach of the 400. I like to get tight, up-close shots like this http://www.johnebongophotography.smugmug.com/photos/220770771-L.jpg
and the 400 makes that a little easier. One last thing to consider is that the 400 is heavy and can a monster to carry around a field, even mounted on a monopod. Hope this helps.........John

That's a great shot. I certainly hear you about the overkill -- if I decide to go longer I should get pretty good trade-in value for the 300. Thanks!

KED · January 21, 2008

SavedByZero wrote:

1.4x teleconveter?? Bueller??

People seem to hate the teleconverter in general -- but I have a 1.4 and you've given me a great suggestion for easily determining, in context, whether I would prefer the longer focal length from my shooting vantages -- just slap it on and compare. Thank you.

KED · January 21, 2008

SavedByZero wrote:

1.4x teleconveter?? Bueller??

What's Bueller?

Foochar · January 21, 2008

KED wrote:

What's Bueller?

It's a reference to the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off

KED · January 21, 2008

Foochar wrote:

It's a reference to the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off

One of the greatest movies of all time! No wonder I couldn't find it when I searched B&H though!

claudermilk · January 22, 2008

I don't care who you are, now that right there is funny. reference

It's not that everyone universally hates the TCs, it's just a matter of using them with the right lenses. For the primes under discussion, the 1.4x TC is a viable option. For zooms, as they are so often asked about, no they aren't such a great choice.

ASkip · January 22, 2008

KED wrote:

(being prepared, without an assistant, to carefully drop the monopod rig to the ground!).
.

woohoo, lacrosse season is coming up. I take a lot of lacrosse pictures (just high school) with a 300 2.8 and if it's sunny, I use my 80-400 zoom. A 400 would be cool but that quote above is what I, personally, would be nervous about. Dropping a heavy lens to the ground carefully takes time. I'd think you'd miss the shot (in a couple of ways) changing cameras. not to mention the risk of a player stomping on it as they get to your end of the field.
Of course, you have the perfect excuse to go get a 400.. so I'd be tempted, if I had bigger arms.
and I just returned my 1.4TC to B&H because, to my eye, it made my pictures worse on the 300 mm lens, noticeably worse.
Happy shopping!
Anna

KED · January 22, 2008

ASkip wrote:

woohoo, lacrosse season is coming up. I take a lot of lacrosse pictures (just high school) with a 300 2.8 and if it's sunny, I use my 80-400 zoom. A 400 would be cool but that quote above is what I, personally, would be nervous about. Dropping a heavy lens to the ground carefully takes time. I'd think you'd miss the shot (in a couple of ways) changing cameras. not to mention the risk of a player stomping on it as they get to your end of the field.
Of course, you have the perfect excuse to go get a 400.. so I'd be tempted, if I had bigger arms.
and I just returned my 1.4TC to B&H because, to my eye, it made my pictures worse on the 300 mm lens, noticeably worse.
Happy shopping!
Anna

Well, I've had a new development today that may just push me to the 400 -- I was supposed to be getting a press credential that would have enabled me to shoot from the sidelines both home and away (so the "stomping" risk would have been highly relevant), but there's an NCAA rule that may stand in my way as a parent/shooter (meanwhile, kids who can't read are on full rides but that's another topic). So if I have to be up in the stands, I know I will have to go longer.

Side note: If anyone has experience with the NCAA's "special benefits" regs in this context, please PM me.

Anyway, I am really happy to see that lax-mania has spread to So. Cal! It's a sexy sport and lends itself to great shots. Enjoy the season. We start 2/1 in New England but hey, my kid is playing Ivy League lax, so if he can deal with it, so can I!

KED · January 22, 2008

ASkip wrote:

and I just returned my 1.4TC to B&H because, to my eye, it made my pictures worse on the 300 mm lens, noticeably worse.
Happy shopping!
Anna

One other thing: Noticeable in-camera or only in post?

jdryan3 · January 22, 2008

KED wrote:

Anyway, I am really happy to see that lax-mania has spread to So. Cal!

Isn't LAX actually in So Cal?

KED wrote:

I was supposed to be getting a press credential that would have enabled me to shoot from the sidelines both home and away (so the "stomping" risk would have been highly relevant), but there's an NCAA rule that may stand in my way as a parent/shooter

Side note: If anyone has experience with the NCAA's "special benefits" regs in this context, please PM me.

I highlighted the key word. Here is the link to the NCAA Division I Manual. I think the correct phrase is "Extra Benefit" (Bylaws, Article 16, 16.02.3 on page 199). Short Version: the student-athlete, friends and family can only get what any other student would get. And I doubt your student's school is allowing any and all students on the sidelines. I don't think the issue is related to 16.2.1 (page 201) on tickets and admissions.

Seems I could get a sideline pass, or you could once your student-athlete is, well no longer a student-athlete.

SavedByZero · January 22, 2008

ASkip wrote:

and I just returned my 1.4TC to B&H because, to my eye, it made my pictures worse on the 300 mm lens, noticeably worse.
Happy shopping!
Anna

Did you get the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Olympus/Minolta brand name teleconveter for their 300 2.8 lens or the generic Kenko one on both of your lens??

ASkip · January 23, 2008

KED wrote:

One other thing: Noticeable in-camera or only in post?

I got a Nikon TC-14E to go with my Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens. I felt that there were blurry parts in the photos (in the detail parts) but it wasn't evenly blurry, it was like it had astigmatism. Anyway, I'm hoping B&H fix it, or replace it or tell me I'm crazy.

Anyway, I don't see anyone saying you don't need 400 for sports, so go shopping. hehe.

Foochar · January 23, 2008

jdryan3 wrote:

Isn't LAX actually in So Cal?

I highlighted the key word. Here is the link to the NCAA Division I Manual. I think the correct phrase is "Extra Benefit" (Bylaws, Article 16, 16.02.3 on page 199). Short Version: the student-athlete, friends and family can only get what any other student would get. And I doubt your student's school is allowing any and all students on the sidelines. I don't think the issue is related to 16.2.1 (page 201) on tickets and admissions.

Seems I could get a sideline pass, or you could once your student-athlete is, well no longer a student-athlete.

What draws my attention in that section is the following passage:

"Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., foreign students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability. (Revised: 1/10/91)"

What this makes me wonder is what is the schools justification for giving you a sideline pass. Are you a newspaper photographer, and do they generally give passes to newspaper photographers? Are you an official team photographer, and they generally give passes to official team photographers? To me it reads like the policy is there to keep benefit from being handed out because the student is a starter etc. What they don't want is Johnny is our star player and his dad wants a field pass so we'll give him one to keep them happy.

jdryan3 · January 23, 2008

Foochar wrote:

What this makes me wonder is what is the schools justification for giving you a sideline pass. Are you a newspaper photographer, and do they generally give passes to newspaper photographers? Are you an official team photographer, and they generally give passes to official team photographers? To me it reads like the policy is there to keep benefit from being handed out because the student is a starter etc. What they don't want is Johnny is our star player and his dad wants a field pass so we'll give him one to keep them happy.

Absolutely. I like Kent's work, but I am under the impression he is not working press. I may be wrong, and he is entitled to a 'Press Pass'. But even if he is, the school may be taking a more conservative approach by saying he is first the parent of a student-athlete and that overrides any other consideration.

Schools are very picky about this stuff because the NCAA is very narrow in their interpretations - appearances of impropriety are as bad as actual offenses. Schools just don't want to deal with that.

Another issue is whether he sells those images on his site, and what he would do with those of his child's games.

KED · January 23, 2008

Dave and Travis -- Since last on line, I have done additional investigating (and Dave, thanks for the link to the D-I manual). It appears that there are two issues:

(1) giving me a press pass for the purpose of ultimately posting images on my site could be a back door way of moving money in my direction, since even though the images are downloadable, unwatermarked, for free, if people buy approximately 10,000,000 prints at my way-below-commercial pricing i might actually recoup the cost of my SmugMug account; and

(2) there's also something about using athletes' images for profit or for any commercial purpose.

So it seems to me that if i simply disable printing for this gallery and give the stuff away (which I'd be quite prepared to do), I might have a case.

Ironically, there would seem to be nothing stopping me from shooting from the stands and charging through the nose for everything, including downloads. But to your point Dave, not only am I not working press, I am not "working" at all or looking to make a dime -- I do this because I love the sport and I love photography, and secondarily because I know that the kids (including but by no means limited to mine) and their parents really appreciate it.

And finally, thank you for saying that you like my work -- that makes my day right there!

KED · January 23, 2008

ASkip wrote:

Anyway, I don't see anyone saying you don't need 400 for sports, so go shopping. hehe.

I am edging ever closer, particularly in light of these new developments, and if you keep nudging me . . .

Come to think of it, I'm gonna be in NYC about 10 blocks from B&H TOMORROW!

wetsands · January 26, 2008

KED wrote:

Dave and Travis -- Since last on line, I have done additional investigating (and Dave, thanks for the link to the D-I manual). It appears that there are two issues:

(1) giving me a press pass for the purpose of ultimately posting images on my site could be a back door way of moving money in my direction, since even though the images are downloadable, unwatermarked, for free, if people buy approximately 10,000,000 prints at my way-below-commercial pricing i might actually recoup the cost of my SmugMug account; and

(2) there's also something about using athletes' images for profit or for any commercial purpose.

So it seems to me that if i simply disable printing for this gallery and give the stuff away (which I'd be quite prepared to do), I might have a case.

Ironically, there would seem to be nothing stopping me from shooting from the stands and charging through the nose for everything, including downloads. But to your point Dave, not only am I not working press, I am not "working" at all or looking to make a dime -- I do this because I love the sport and I love photography, and secondarily because I know that the kids (including but by no means limited to mine) and their parents really appreciate it.

And finally, thank you for saying that you like my work -- that makes my day right there!

I think you're on the right track - Selling images is against NCAA rules- using them for editorial purposes is acceptable. Not sure I agree with the giving stuff away for free though. That type of mentality puts others, such as team photographers in this case, out of work.

PS..the 400 works great from behind the endzone and up to the 20 yard line. The 300 may work better if you're running up and down the side lines...just shoot from within 10 yards or so of the line of scrimage. With that said check out the rules and ediquette for shooting NCAA football..you may have to stay back of the 20 yard line through the back of the endzone (check w/ the athletic director or refs if you're unsure)...
ps .. shoot low & always be aware of what is going on around you..always have an escape route so you can back up out of the way quickly if the play gets too close. have fun!

wetsands · January 26, 2008

ASkip wrote:

I got a Nikon TC-14E to go with my Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens. I felt that there were blurry parts in the photos (in the detail parts) but it wasn't evenly blurry, it was like it had astigmatism. Anyway, I'm hoping B&H fix it, or replace it or tell me I'm crazy.

Anyway, I don't see anyone saying you don't need 400 for sports, so go shopping. hehe.

Thats too bad , the 1.4 tc works great with the 300 f2.8 & 400 f2.8 with no real reduction in AF speed or image quaility at all. did you try the tc on another lens to see if you had the same results, did stopping down an extra stop make a differenc, no fingerprints on the glasss ?
eihter way B&H 'll take care of you I'm sure... the 1.4 + 300 f2.8 really is a deadly combonation

20DNoob · January 26, 2008

I also thought it strange as my 1.4 on the 300 2.8 works great.

jdryan3 · January 27, 2008

KED wrote:

Come to think of it, I'm gonna be in NYC about 10 blocks from B&H TOMORROW!

OK, you would have been there Thursday. So what did you get?

KED · January 27, 2008

jdryan3 wrote:

OK, you would have been there Thursday. So what did you get?

In an exercise of iron-like willpower, I did not go to B&H at all. I realized that I save 8.75% sales tax if I have it shipped to my office in CT -- nothing to sneeze at with that lens. I already know what it looks and feels like, so there was no point in tempting myself.

It's all but a done deal though -- I don't "need" it until until regular lax season starts in three weeks; until then it's just scrimmages on fields where I know I can get right on the sideline/endline. Still, I probably will own it within a week or two. :ivar (me); :cry (my bank account)!

KED · February 4, 2008

jdryan3 wrote:

OK, you would have been there Thursday. So what did you get?

John -- I pulled the trigger on the 400 yesterday during the Superbowl, it shipped from B&H today and it is mine tomorrow. :ivar Any advice on how to sneak something that BIG into the house?

Also needed to order a RRS lens plate, which will take longer to arrive. May be a couple of weeks before I really get to try it out so in the meantime I'll probably just cradle it while I watch replays of the Giants' stunning upset victory over the Patriots!

I will probably sell the 300 at some point, but I do love that lens. I'm shooting in front of a new audience this spring (yes, it is now spring on the D-I lacrosse calendar), so I may use the 300 to break people in to the concept of "dad with long glass" before I haul out the really big weapon.

And just to tidy things up on other branches of this thread, I'm going to disable printing of Brown shots in hopes of scoring that press pass. So the 400 will have something like an infinite negative return on investment, except (hopefully) for the results.

Long Telephoto for Sports -- 300 vs 400

Comments