Need a 400mm lens

[ekstasis16]

Hello everyone,
I’m pretty new to this site but have been reading through this sports forum for a couple months. I recently posted some photos to my gallery here and Old Timer was kind enough to invite me on over. I’ve been shooting for about a year and a half, and shooting sports specifically for about 6 months. I’m a web developer at Cal Lutheran and shoot the home games when I am able to.

I don’t want to distract from GlobalMind’s thread on gear selection, but I’m also trying to search for a new lens or two right now. I shoot with a 70-200 f4 on a 20D right now, and its pretty much a set deal that I’m going to upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 IS, but I also want to get something in the 300 or 400 range. My budget is about $1700, so I’ve narrowed it down to:

Canon 400 f/5.6L USM
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon 300 f/4L IS USM

I would really like to get something that can reach 400mm for football, soccer and baseball (we have a whole new sports complex opening up soon with much larger fields than we have now, so I don’t know if 300mm will be flexible enough although if I had the funds, I'd be staring at a 300 2.8 right now). I’m leaning towards the 400 5.6 because it’s light, sharp and since I have a 70-200 already I imagine I would be staying at the long end of the 100-400 most of the time. It’s a bit slow, but on bright sunny days (plenty of those in LA) it shouldn’t be a problem with a monopod.

The 300 f4 is tempting because of the f4 and the IS, but from the reviews I’ve read it seems that the IS doesn’t rev up too quick and drains batteries big time. Anyone have experience with any of these lenses for sports?

Thanks,
Erik

[JSPhoto]

Hello everyone,
I’m pretty new to this site but have been reading through this sports forum for a couple months. I recently posted some photos to my gallery here and Old Timer was kind enough to invite me on over. I’ve been shooting for about a year and a half, and shooting sports specifically for about 6 months. I’m a web developer at Cal Lutheran and shoot the home games when I am able to.

I don’t want to distract from GlobalMind’s thread on gear selection, but I’m also trying to search for a new lens or two right now. I shoot with a 70-200 f4 on a 20D right now, and its pretty much a set deal that I’m going to upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 IS, but I also want to get something in the 300 or 400 range. My budget is about $1700, so I’ve narrowed it down to:

Canon 400 f/5.6L USM
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon 300 f/4L IS USM

I would really like to get something that can reach 400mm for football, soccer and baseball (we have a whole new sports complex opening up soon with much larger fields than we have now, so I don’t know if 300mm will be flexible enough although if I had the funds, I'd be staring at a 300 2.8 right now). I’m leaning towards the 400 5.6 because it’s light, sharp and since I have a 70-200 already I imagine I would be staying at the long end of the 100-400 most of the time. It’s a bit slow, but on bright sunny days (plenty of those in LA) it shouldn’t be a problem with a monopod.

The 300 f4 is tempting because of the f4 and the IS, but from the reviews I’ve read it seems that the IS doesn’t rev up too quick and drains batteries big time. Anyone have experience with any of these lenses for sports?

Thanks,
Erik

I take it you won't shoot much indoors? You can find used 400mm with IS at a decent price. You'll have to look hard though.
IS won't eat all that much battery, the AF uses more as it is constantly focusing unless you use the CFn 04 to move AF off the shuuter button. This not only saves battery but I find it makes shooting much easier as focus isn't constantly changing and running the AF motor. The IS simply opens and closes magnets that move a lens and then only if motion is detected while the shutter button is pushed halfway down. AF uses about 20% of your battery power, IS maybe 10%.
Of course the 20D batteries are not as large as the 1D batteries I use so 20%-30% is a big chunk in that respect. Most people I know using the 20D for sports (racing) use the 20d battery until it croaks then plug the 20D into their Norman flash battery pack.
Now there is a flash for you sports shooters....lol...those things are bright even dialed down.

JS

[GlobalMind]

Hello everyone,
I don’t want to distract from GlobalMind’s thread on gear selection. . .

Hey no offense taken here...ask away!



Kevin.

[Old Timer]

Glad you were able to make your way over here. Welcome and we look forward to seeing some of your sports photos. I wis I could be of help with your question, but it is one I am grapling with as well. I would love a longer lens but I keep holding out for the f2.8 and the budget just can't take that right now. I think I will go with a 300 f4. That will help with the soccer and baseball, but just about every thing else is at night under poor lights or indoors.

[SmartWombat]

I use the 100-400, and it's quite good.
It needs to be stopped down at the long end for best quality, but it's done me well.
This was at 400mm
Bird Id Part 2.5

The IS doesn't drain the 20D too much, I managed all day at Goodwood with a battery grip and two fully charged batteries. I had the AF on the shutter button too, and over-used it I'm sure.

Older lenses though - I think consume more power, but I'd need to have some old second hand lenses to try! I 400 f/2.8 would be good but it was £4500 in its trunk. Even the 400mm DO IS was £2995 used

[ekstasis16]

Yeah, a 400 f4 DO or a 300 f2.8 + 1.4 would be great. I need to find a place near me where I can rent these things to test them out.

If the IS doesn't affect the batteries too much then, I might lean towards the 300 f4 IS and use a 1.4 when necessary, at least then I've got another f4 lens.

Actually, now that I think about it, that might make more sense versatility-wise. With the 1.4 TC, it would still knock it down to a f/5.6, but then I have the IS and an extra 20mm.

I think that's the ticket. Now if they would kindly drop the price on the 1.4 a bit... (of course that won't stop me from buying it, but $300? C'mon...)

[JSPhoto]

Ummm, check Adorama, I think they are $254...or was that Roberts in Indy? One of em has it at that price. I am getting one or the other next week.

Rentals: Roberts Distributors in Indianapolis will rent anywhere nationwide. They do require a credit card and a hefty deposit but they have very good service. They have a lot of used gear as well. The website has the rental info on it. If I need to rent gear I always do it through them. Just do not expect to rent anything at race time because all their rental gear (lenses and bodies) goes out to the speedway and is loaned to Canon shooters through CPS. Thats how I get to test out all of Canons lenses

JS

[JSPhoto]

Ok, I was wrong, prices went up...$287 at Adorama....no comment on Roberts price, but I won't be buying there!


JS

[Photo-John]

I'd love to have the Canon 400mm f/2.8L. That lens, as someone once told me, is "the cocaine of camera equipment." He was actually referring to the 500mm L Canon lens. But you need a trailer to take that lens to the track

So yeah, 400mm. I'd look for the 400mm DO IS. A lot of really picky photographers claimed that lens was crap. Not the case from what I've heard. The image quality might not be as good as the 300mm f/2.8L, but that's not a knock. And it's possible someone might be trying to dump one on ebay.

I have the old 300mm f/4L. It's the non-IS version. I've shot a ton of motorcycle roadracing, bicycle roadroacing, and mountain bike photos with it. I also have the old 1.4x Canon extension that I've used with it a lot. I paid $800, used, for my lens about 8 years ago. You should be able to find one for much cheaper now. The image quality of the non-IS lens is supposed to be better, too. However - if you're hoping for fast, accurate AF with the 300 f/4 and extender, forget it. I've missed tons of shots because the AF was too slow or not quite right on. I have a 1D and a 10D and I won't even use it on the 10D unless the subject will fill the frame. Still, that lens is probably one of the best deals in the Canon lens lineup.

Another lens to look at is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. I think that may be one of the ultimate sports zooms. I've played with it a little and the AF seems good. Image quality is reported to be excellent. It's not supposed to be as good as the Canon 300mm f/2.8L. But who'd expect it to be that good. You're trading a tiny bit of image quality for flexibility. Seems reasonable to me. I keep thinking about dumping my 300mm f/4L and picking up the Sigma. I think I'd probably use it a lot more.

[JSPhoto]

Hi Photo John,

The 400 DO is a very good lens. I used one at the Indy 500 practice last year. I liked the lens a lot, light for a 400, I shot with it hand held and with only manual focus because the AF went out. The shots were still very sharp.
If I had the $$ for a 400 it would be the one I'd get.

JS

[ekstasis16]

I lookedup the Sigma 120-300, and it would be great to have a lens with that range at a constant 2.8, but its just a bit out of my price range. I'm not making enough from my photography right now to justify that, its still sort of a side business. But if I hold off a couple months and squirrel away some dough, I might go for it. Or, heaven help me, the Canon 300 2.8.

I've always been just a tiny bit skeptical of using third party lenses (maybe I've been too suckered in by the Canon brand) - I've heard of some people having problems using non-Canon lenses on their Canon bodies. I'm guessing this is really rare though. Has anyone had any problems with non-Canon lenses?