Another 300f4 IS or 400f5.6 question...

[Jon Ruyle]

I don't disagree with Nate's suggestion that you rent.


However, it *sounds* like much more concerned with reach than with MFD or IS. You've tried 280mm and know you would like more reach than that. This being the case, the 400mm f/5.6 seems the way to go.


(Sure, you could put the TC on a 300mm in a pinch, but if you're primarily going to want the longer focal length, get the longer lens).

[Dallasphotog]

I use the EF 300mm f/4.0 L USM (no IS) for a lot of daylight sports and I think it is a great choice. It is certainly lighter and less expensive than the two big f/2.8 primes and it is a tad sharper than the 70-200. If you do choose the EF70-200mm f/2.8, you'll have an outstanding and versatile lens.


I rarely see the EF400 f/5.6 and I think it is just a tad too slow for anything but brite day shooting.


You can't go wrong with the 300.

[jeffersonposter]

The 300 f/4 is slow with the 1.4x (f/5.6). I use the 300 on a 30d (480mm f/4 not bad), and on a 5d. You also loose some IQ with a TC. I like IQ. The 70-200 f/4 IS also has great IQ as is. I have both (I like Primes better). f/4 needs good light to get good IQ. f/5.6 (I assume your not talking about the 400 f/2.8) seems to slow to me to shoot sports. No AF with a TC on non 1series bodies( the 400 f/5.6)

[neuroanatomist]

Just to play devil's advocate, why a prime? You're going to be on the sidelines of a sport where the players are moving up and down the field, so the action might be 15 feet away, or might be 50 yards away. To me, that situation calls for the flexibility of a zoom like the 100-400mm.


However, if you're going out with the 70-200 f/4 on a second body then a prime would make sense. You stated, "I have a Kenko 1.4xtc that I use on the 70-200 and get great results at 280mm but find the need for a longer reach most times." If you really mean most times, why are you considering the 300mm f/4? If you'd said your problem with the 70-200+1.4x is that at 280mm f/5.6 is too slow, or IQ is inadequate, then the 300mm f/4 would be the obvious choice. But 300mm is not a 'longer reach' than 280mm, IMO, so if you're going with a prime you'd want the 400mm f/5.6. But then I'd come back to the 100-400mm, since at 400mm it's no slower than the prime, and offers much more flexibility, IS just in case, and only a very minor hit on IQ.

[Colin]

You're going to be on the sidelines of a sport where the players are moving up and down the field, so the action might be 15 feet away, or might be 50 yards away. To me, that situation calls for the flexibility of a zoom like the 100-400mm.


However, if you're going out with the 70-200 f/4 on a second body then a prime would make sense.

I agree much. For such things, I really like a 70-200 on one body at aprime on another.


Good for games, weddings, etc.