400mm f/2.8 L IS USM or 300 f/2.8 L IS USM?

[WAFKT]

I realise this is a bit of a loaded question, but I'll throw it out there and maybe I’ll 'hear' some viewpoints that I haven't considered. I'm looking to purchase a new piece of glass for my wife (aspiring sports photographer). Primarily she wants to shoot hockey and MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) – for which she uses her 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM and 24-70mm f2.8 L USM respectively when she’s able to get rink/ring side.

However, there are some situations where 200mm just doesn't quite have the necessary reach (e.g. shooting hockey from an NHL arena’s balcony and 280mm with the 1.4x extender is too slow; or shooting track/field sports where even 300mm can still be a bit wide).

Originally I had planned to purchase her the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM on the advice of another sports photographer – citing it as possibly the best sports lens money can buy, and frankly I’ve found little argument to the contrary.

I was all set to place the order, when I began to worry about its size and weight. My wife is only 165cm (5’5”) and 45kg (100lbs); the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM is over 40cm (16”) long (with hood attached) and nearly 5.5kg (~12 lbs) in weight. She’s currently shooting with a 50D, but I’ll likely purchase her the 1D MkIV (or whatever Canon chooses to call it) when it’s available (provide the reviews are positive) – which could see the total assembled gear weigh-in at over 6.5kg (~14.5 lbs). She already finds her 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM too heavy to shoot handheld (thus she shoots exclusively with it on her monopod with no troubles) and can only manage her 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM handheld for a few minutes at a time. Obviously she’ll never be shooting with the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM without a monopod and she’s likely not going to be moving about a whole lot with it either (i.e. she’s likely not going to be running up and down sidelines with a 400mm over her shoulder, a 70-200mm hanging off her other shoulder and a 16-35mm holstered to her hip).

That got me thinking that perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM might be a better option for her, as it’s less then half the weight and almost half the length – albeit at the cost of 100mm in focal length.

I’d hate to spend the money on the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM only to find that it’s far to large and heavy for her to manage, and have her leaving it at home most of time, or that it’s too tight to be useful for the main sports she wants to photograph. None of the camera stores in our area have a 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM in stock, or even available for rent, so there’s no way to ‘try one on for size’.

I'd really like to avoid any scenario that has me buying both! Frankly my wife is spoiled enough.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Probably the 300/2.8L would be the better choice. Sigma's 120-300/2.8 might also be a good choice, and she could leave the 70-200/2.8L home sometimes, but it may not autofocus as fast and does not have IS (although IS is not as necessary for sports).

[alexniedra]

Hey WAFKT...


Very great kit your wife has! I envy the lenses[:)]


Anyway, anybody can tell you to not compare apples to oranges. However, I understand your situation.


From a versatility standpoint, I would go for the 400 2.8 L IS. Considering she is already using the 70-200 with the 1.4x extender, to buy the 300 where "280 f/4 isn't fast enough" could end up being a bit redundant. With the 400, you wife can then use both. The 400 will get use for very tight/distant shots, while the 70-200 will get use from the closer action.


Looking at it's bulk and weight, it is not a light or small lens. It will surely take some getting used to. The monopod is a must. You may also consider a very sturdy tripod with a Wimberly Gimbal setup for certain shooting situations. When I first tried a 70-200, I thought that was big for a while. Little did I know...[:)]


I can say that once your wife reviews the results she gets from the 400, she may very well be over the size and weight.


Optically, the 400 does not dissapoint. Check out Bryan's review - It's very helpful to win you over [:)]





So, my take: Get the 400. The versitality with the 70-200 can't be beat. And the ability to use the 1.4x teleconverter with the 400 seems very cool.


Hope I provided you with some useful insight...


- Alex

[Colin]

I would suggest renting both lenses first.


I haven't tried www.lensrentals.com ("http://www.lensrentals.com) but they've come highly recommended from others here.


Performance-wise, particularly from a balcony, and you'd still probably want to get closer, the 400mm f/2.8 is the easy choice.


However, I'm trying to think about proportions here (for me that'd be like swinging a 20 lbs lens, pound for pound, and I'm pretty strong for my weight, and I wouldn't be particularly interested in moving that around).At 12 lb lens, plus the body, I'm guessing that for her (and most people)it's going to bea significant drawback, possibly problematic. Even on a monopod, if it starts leaning too much one way or the other, it may get unweildy fast, even tip her over with it. If she's going with a 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x extender, she's then got a 420mm f/4 with compromised image quality. It'll still be good, but at that point, maybe a 400mm f/4 DO might do her better. The image equality isn't on par with either lens sans extender, but with some post processing, it might be just great, and it'll be even lighter than the 300mm f/2.8. I've gota friend who has one that he took to Africa, and he loves it. He could afford either of the others, easily, but the 400mm f/4 DO IS USM was, for him, the ideal tool for the job.


I can afford none of the above, so, thankfully, I don't have your problem :)


But, her ease of use is paramount. Try them all out.

[Bob]

Having shot this kind of sport before, a 400mm with a monopod is a must.The monopod will remove the weight issue and the IS will remove any shake or vibration from the stands.

[Rodger]

Dang WAFKT, what line of work are you in? Is there room in the job field for me? Im scraping together just to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 hahaha :)


For what it's worth (in myinexperience), I say 400 with a sturdy tripod. The tripod would fix the problem Colin mentioned with the monopod + 400 combo leaning. (Not saying your wife couldn't handle it, but thats a prettty big investment that could potentially come crashing down should she slip or something).


All in all though, I second Colin's opinion in saying renting them is probably the best option. Or somehow testing them. (Borrow from a friend?).


-Rodger

[alexniedra]

Borrow from a friend?


Really good friends? [:)]

[Bob]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"]Obviously, some of the other posts have not tried to get a tripod into a professional sports stadium. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Not possible unless the staff is asleep, a monopod is hard, but possible.

[Rodger]

ahh, Sorry about that Bob.


Again, myinexperience shining through.


Can change my vote to the 300 then?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

You need to consider these factors before you buy either one of those lenses:

I knoweither the 300 f/2.8 or the 400 f/2.8 will be very heavy, but if she is serious and really loves what she's doing, she'll be fine with either one on a monopod.
Most of the time if not all the time, you're are not allowed to set up a tripod on the sidelines of professional sporting events.
If your wife is shooting from the stands as a spectator, she will not be allowed to bring supertelephotos into the games.

[alexniedra]

Agreed, Sinh Nhut.


The monopod is the way to go. Like I said before, I'd go with the 400, for versatility.

[WAFKT]

I can rent the 300mm f/2.8 locally, I'll likely let her give that a
try. If she find the weight of that to be close to her limit then I suppose
I'll buy her that one (sounds like it will make a great indoor sports lens at 300mm f/2.8, and a decent outdoor sports lens at 420mm f/4 with 1.4x extender). However, if she handles the 300mm f/2.8 just
fine, but finds that it doesn't have the reach she desires, then I'll buy her the
400mm f/2.8 and hope for the best.



Thanks for all the great insight.

[Fred Doane]

WAFKT,


You may want to take in account if you'll be going from the 50D that she currently owns (1.6X crop factor) to the new 1D Mark IV (1.3X crop factor) she will lose focal length. If you get the 300 2.8 it's a 480mm on the 50D but only a 390mm on the 1D Mark IV. The difference is even more pronounced with the 400mm with the difference of 120mm loss. Just something to think about if you're serious about her getting the 1D series.


Fred~

[peety3]

However, there are some situations where 200mm just doesn't quite have the necessary reach (e.g. shooting hockey from an NHL arena&rsquo;s balcony and 280mm with the 1.4x extender is too slow; or shooting track/field sports where even 300mm can still be a bit wide).





Either you need to tell all of us how to get media passes to NHL games as an "aspiring sports photographer", or you need to realize that she'll almost never get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 into an NHL arena, monopod or not. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to get a 100-400 into an NHL event in many cities. I've seen Rebels in our local arena for a minor league hockey game, but I almost had a 1D Mark III and 24-105 taken away at an Alan Jackson concert in the same arena.


For what it's worth, my high-level (read that as "dream") plan is to get the "odd telephotos" first: 135/2, 300/2.8, 500/4 (mixed in with other standard and wide primes, bodies, lighting, etc.) before I get the "even telephotos" last: 200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6. To me, the 300 and 500 are far more versatile since they don't demand a monopod or gimbal head tripod.


That brings up a thought: what about the 200/2? I've heard it's amazing with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. I know she'd end up at 400/4, but it might be a more versatile option in the end.

[Dallasphotog]

I use both lenses quite a lot. I can say that you will not be disappointed with either lens and you really aren't handicapped by your choice. I think the question of weight is quite relevant. I can handhold the 300 for an entire game if necessary, but the 400 is out of the question. Even on my monopod, the 400 is very heavy and very akward. I've compared the 400 to having a small child on top of your monopod. I'm not a small guy (6-2, 215) and I find the 400 hard to use for an entire tournament weekend. It's just that big and akward. The IQ from both lenses is spectacularly good.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/hit4cycle4/MF1T7031.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/hit4cycle4/TN_MF1T6543.jpg


The first picture is with the EF300mm f/2.8, the second picture is from the EF400mm f/2.8. Both ran front page...I think you can use either lens and shoot great stuff.

[WAFKT]

Either you need to tell all of us how to get
media passes to NHL games as an "aspiring sports photographer", or you
need to realize that she'll almost never get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 into
an NHL arena, monopod or not.


You'd be surprised what they'll let a
cute little thing walk-in with. Full Disclosure: She's never taken her
gear into the arena for an NHL game (they're pretty strict on that;although she's never actually tried -
she usually brings her G10 to those games), but she has got her gear
into the same arena for WHL and NLL games (supposedly they have the
same restrictions on photographic equipment, but they seem a little
less strict at enforcing it - I've seen a few guys with 200mm get
tossed, but they seem to leave my wife alone). I agree, she'll likely
never get a 300mm or 400mm in the door (regardless of the event)
without a press pass. There are some sports photography internships
available for students, but you have to have your own pro gear - I'm
just trying to do my part to give her every advantage over other
applicants.



That brings up a thought: what about the
200/2? I've heard it's amazing with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. I know she'd
end up at 400/4, but it might be a more versatile option in the
end.


We hadn't given any thought to the 200mm f/2.0 L IS
USM - was really hoping to narrow down the choices not add a third one to the mix, but thanks for the recommendation. In all
honesty, I hoping that if I dropped $9K on the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM I'd
get to play with it too - I saw some cool shots that someone had taken
with a 400mm and 2.0x and 1.4x extender stacked - 1120mm f/5.6
equivalent (the 1200mm f/5.6 at B&amp;H is only slightly out of our price range - sarcasim if anyone missed that); 560mm f/4 just doesn't seem as cool? I know, it's all
about what's best for my wife... Certainly one nice thing about the
200mm f/2.0 L IS USM at the moment is the $500 rebate (there's no rebate
available at the moment for the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM or 300mm f/2.8 L
IS USM) - maybe a good time to pick it up.

[Dallasphotog]

Not to sidetrack the discussion about the big lenses, but media credentials or not necesaarily impossible to obtain. Try these steps in your area.


1. Shoot a decent portfolio of actions shots from some local high school events. Don't worry about volume, just get some spectacular shots.


2. Choose your best two or three and send them to the Director of Photography at your local paper asking if theyneed freelancers.


3. If your portfolio is up to the paper's standards, expect to receive a 12-page Word document in the return e-mail asking you to sign away your first born in return for a small fee per published assignment. Expect to spend more on gas and food covering the event than you actually get paid! Repeat the chant, I do this for the art, not the money.


4. Discuss upcoming events with the DoP and ask him / her to send the required fax to a team's media relations requesting credentials. This may be no more than an e-mail with your name if the paper and team have a long relationship. Expect to get obscure high school or college events until you seem reliable to the DoP and don't be suprise when the "best shot of your life" appears in a 1" sqaure on page 16.


5. Once published, start collecting your tear sheets...

[Jon Ruyle]

We hadn't given any thought to the 200mm f/2.0 L IS
USM - was really hoping to narrow down the choices not add a third one to the mix,


Okay, then I apologize for this. If the 400 isn't too heavy, fine. If the 300 has enough reach, fine. But if the 300 isn't long enough and the 400 is too heavy, it seems that your only option is to abandon f/2.8. One stop buys a lot of portability. Eg, even the 500 f/4 is lighter than the 400 f/2.8. I've never used it, but I'm told it is much easier to deal with than the 400 f/2.8.

[WAFKT]

Not to sidetrack the discussion about the big lenses, but media credentials or not necesaarily impossible to obtain. Try these steps in your area.


1. Shoot a decent portfolio of actions shots from some local high school events. Don't worry about volume, just get some spectacular shots.


2. Choose your best two or three and send them to the Director of Photography at your local paper asking if theyneed freelancers.


3. If your portfolio is up to the paper's standards, expect to receive a 12-page Word document in the return e-mail asking you to sign away your first born in return for a small fee per published assignment. Expect to spend more on gas and food covering the event than you actually get paid! Repeat the chant, I do this for the art, not the money.


4. Discuss upcoming events with the DoP and ask him / her to send the required fax to a team's media relations requesting credentials. This may be no more than an e-mail with your name if the paper and team have a long relationship. Expect to get obscure high school or college events until you seem reliable to the DoP and don't be suprise when the "best shot of your life" appears in a 1" sqaure on page 16.


5. Once published, start collecting your tear sheets...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>


Great advice, my wife is chasing down some leads to do just that - getting good gear is also part of that equation; no one's interested in sport photos you shot on a Rebel with a kit lens at f5.6 (eventhough I've seen some that try). Fortunately for her the mortgage payment and equipment purchases don't hinge upon her making money at it - although it would hurt!

[Colin]

Photography seems like a pretty lousy field to make money. I know that some people do, but for what you've got to do and accomplish to make the kind of money... you've got to be pretty exceptional, and put in a whole lot on the front end, at least it seems so.


That said, I really wish I was one of those who could/did/does. Assuming you're working in an environment you like, it seems like one of the best jobs ever. Probably why there's so much cheap competition.


I guess if there was an EASY way to make a lot of money, everybody'd do it.


However, from what I've seen, it seems like the people who really make good money at what they do spend most of their time telling OTHER people what to do for them. But it takes a certain perspective on things to make that any fun. Probably why so few people do it well enough to actually make it lucrative... Tangent.


FWIW, I thought you were a part owner of the team or something. I think that would probably get her access, probably.

[Rodger]

Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to get a 100-400 into an NHL event in many cities. I've seen Rebels in our local arena for a minor league hockey game, but I almost had a 1D Mark III and 24-105 taken away at an Alan Jackson concert in the same arena.


I called Mellon Arena about an hour ago regarding the Stanley Cup game tonight and the guy seemedapprehensiveabout giving me the ok for my kitlens. (20D and 18-55). He eventually did give me the thumbs up. On the website the rule states no lens longer than 3 inches. I cant imagine trying to get a 100-400 or any other telephoto lens past the gates.


Any tips on getting through unnoticed?

[peety3]

I called Mellon Arena about an hour ago regarding the Stanley Cup game tonight and the guy seemedapprehensiveabout giving me the ok for my kitlens. (20D and 18-55). He eventually did give me the thumbs up. On the website the rule states no lens longer than 3 inches. I cant imagine trying to get a 100-400 or any other telephoto lens past the gates.


Any tips on getting through unnoticed?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Checking the website: "Mellon Arena&rsquo;s building policy allows only small, personal still
cameras (preferably disposable) equipped with 3 inch lens or smaller to
be brought into the Arena. Cameras with detachable lenses or flashes
are not permitted. Video, audio and professional-grade cameras and
recording devices are strictly prohibited in the Arena." 20D and kit lens is a gray area, especially when interpreted by Mongo the Security Guard. Your lens is probably shorter than 3 inches, but it's detachable so you may have a problem.


One time, I almost took my 1D3 and the nifty fifty to MSG, and finally decided that wasn't smart. I decided to go enjoy the game, and not bother others around me with the clack of the shutter and a big black object that might be in their view all too often. As much as I don't like it, I do have (at least a little) respect for those who make money on their photography at these events. They've clawed their way into a position to capture perhaps a day rate and/or a per-shot fee, and although your camera might not threaten their work they just don't know. So, if nothing else, enjoy the game, but it might be best to just leave the camera home.


All that said, I had to rewind game 1 or 2 a little bit last weekend, as I'm sure I saw someone in the stands with a super-tele (300 or 400, I was too lazy to count rings and look it up) who was fairly clearly in the crowd. Just because they got in with it doesn't mean you will though. :(


I'm pretty sure at least one arena allows lenses up to 200mm. I'd love to go there with the 200/2 and have the mrs hide a 1.4x or 2x in her purse. :)

[WAFKT]

Any tips on getting through unnoticed?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Have bigger boobs than gear... (sorry, but that seems to work for my wife).

[Jon Ruyle]

Any tips on getting through unnoticed?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Have bigger boobs than gear... (sorry, but that seems to work for my wife).





Uh, wait. And she's getting a 400mm f/2.8?

[WAFKT]

Uh, wait. And she's getting a 400mm f/2.8?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Ha! I see your point... I hope I don't have to but a new pair of those too...

[peety3]

As Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals says on his description of the 800/5.6, "The 800 f5.6 is also the photography equivalent of a D cup: Not a
necessity, but wherever you go with it, you&rsquo;ll make lots of new friends."

[Dallasphotog]

I'm not sure how much of this I want to tell in public, but I use the term "white lens pass" a lot. For many events, simply having two camera bodies with giant white lenses hanging from you will open a security gate or two. I also find that myhuge collection of old credentialsseems to remove the necessity for more credentials.


If you get arrested you're on your own...

[Rodger]

Haha Dallas, Im not too sure how seriously a majorleaguesports staff would take a highschool senior. Regardless of how many white lenses I [wish] I have lol.


That being said, after I obtain a 70-200 f/2.8, I will follow your steps to getting passes that you posted a few posts back. Soccer season for school this year will provide many opportunities and I'm pretty sure I could work something out with the local papereventually.


Until then, I can only go to the games andin envy,stare at those with 400mm lenses and media passes.





Heres a totally unrelated question: Does each major photog at a pro sports game (specifically hockey) have his/her own set of strobes set up? If you look at the ceiling of an arena, there are numerous flashes going off. Just curious. Not meaning to sidetrack the discussion.