300mm 2.8L vs. 400mm 2.8L

[weclickyoupick.com]

Canoneers,


Been awhile since my last post as I've been pretty busy shooting soccer and lacrosse with an occasional portrait thrown in. I did land my first corporate gig in which I'll be shooting a day long seminar and awards ceremony that includes break-out sessions and dinner etc. I'm hoping to master the flash vs. ambient dynamic before June 21st. Any topline tips would be appreciated.


My burning question, though, is for those that have tried both of the lenses in my subject line. I'm a coupla months away from pulling the trigger on the 300 2.8L for sports. I shoot both day and night sports. I was wondering if I should hold out for the much more expensive 400 2.8L or is the 300mm enough? I've heard and read so much about the 300mm IQ.....that it sounds like it's preferred from a IQ standpoint and that with a 1.4X extender I would have the alternative focal length at a considerable savings.


Thanx in advance for your input!


Cheers,


Jeff

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

400 f/2.8 for field sports likesoccer and football


300 f/2.8 for indoor sports like basketballl

[Jordan]

I have used both, but have much more experience with the 400 2.8. I must say, that lens is SUPERB! I used to shoot surfers on the beach with it mounted behind a 2x converter and a 500D or usually a 50D. It takes SICK photos even with the 2x. The 1.4x extender I only used with it a couple times, but it's of course beautiful. I've used it at a football game with no extenders on my 7D and I can't say enough good things about it. However, in the same game I used a 200 f/2 and like it more as 400 is quite far when you're on the sidelines and the f/2 is always nice


The 300 2.8 I also used for a game, and tried shooting surfers with it too. It's 2x performance is the same in my opinion as the 400 2.8 1.4x and with no converters too... I see little difference. Personally, I'd rather go LIGHT and LESS EXPENSIVE and SHORTER if you're unsure! 300 2.8 in my opinion!





- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[peety3]

I wouldn't buy the 400/2.8 until I'd mastered the 300/2.8 and KNEW that it lacked something you needed.


My long lens "battle plan" is to start with the "odd hundreds" (300/2.8, 500/4), then when most everything else is covered I'll come back around and do the "even hundreds" (200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6).


A local photographer has the 600/4. He brings it out to cycling events and gets great stuff, but it takes him at least two trips from the car to get set up: one for the 600/4 plus tripod and camera, another for a 70-200/2.8 plus camera, flashes, and Quantum battery. The 400/2.8 is as heavy and essentially as big. You'd have to tripod-mount the 400/2.8, or monopod only in desperate situations, whereas the 300/2.8 could be handheld when needed.