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&rdquo and 45kg (100lbs); the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM is over 40cm (16&rdquo 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 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? []

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[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.