Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item The Online Resource for Sports Photography

 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Classified Ads
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions

Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.



|| Member Message Board

Canon 300mm plus 1.4x combo
Corey Perrine, Photographer
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 9:11 AM on 02.28.07
->> Who is using this combo? Of those that use this combo how does it fare against the 400mm 2.8? Obviously the stop of light is huge but just wanted to kick this around. I mainly use the 400 for baseball under the lights which is a lot during the season. I was thinking of selling my series I 400mm for a 300mm IS with 1.4x. Any suggestions, hints, tips, etc. Thanks.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Leas, Photographer
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:31 AM on 02.28.07
->> Can I assume you're talking about the 300 2.8? Or the f/4?

I used the 2.8 non-IS with a Mark I 1.4x TC and love the results. Although I'm sure it's not quite as responsive as the 400 is, it is still very fast and tack sharp, and I find in much of my shooting that the option of doing 300mm or 420mm is more useful than having the fixed 400.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Max Waugh, Photographer
Bothell | WA | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 02.28.07
->> I used this combo during football season last year. I'm used to using the 300mm on its own, because I prefer to hand hold (nearly impossible with the 400mm), but I wanted to try shooting tighter. I thought the results were adequate in a day game in which half the stadium is swathed in shadow, and I kept the 1.4x on more than anticipated. I'd be perfectly willing to do it again, but I'm not sure if it would work all that well for night football games. I can't speak to night baseball. :(

 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Granse, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:08 AM on 02.28.07
->> Image #'s 1,3,4,5, and 9 on my member page were made with the Canon 300mm f2.8 (non IS) and 1.4x teleconverter. The other images were made without the converter.

All ten images were made during the same game, and in less than ideal lighting conditions. It was a very dark late afternoon game (dark rain clouds and the entire field was in the stadium's shadow) which by halftime was lit only by the stadium lights.

The 1.4x II TC worked pretty well until close to halftime, but I was less impressed with it once it got dark.

Even the 2x II TC works pretty well under the right conditions. I have gotten some very sharp images with this combination, but it is one of those tools that only comes out of the bag in bright light and usualy only for a few minutes at a time.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Bolton, Photographer
Rochester | NH | USA | Posted: 10:14 AM on 02.28.07
->> Hey Corey,
I use the 300+1.4x for most of my outdoor sports shooting and love it. No problem w/ optic quality slapping on the 1.4x, IMO. As far as night time shooting, the 300 has worked for me in all types of sports.
If I were always shooting night time baseball, and that's the only thing I shot, I'd keep the 400.
I also like the convience of using a 300 for hockey, hoops.
It works for me.
See ya in the courts!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
Enid | OK | USA | Posted: 10:32 AM on 02.28.07
->> Corey,

For the price of the 400 2.8 it would be too difficult to replace down the road. Keep the 400 and put a 1.4x on your 70-200 f2.8 instead.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:23 PM on 02.28.07
->> My advice is to stay away from shooting wide open. On really sunny days, I've gotten good stuff at f/4 with the 300 f/2.8 and 1.4x combo, but most shots exhibit some ghosting.

If that images with the 1.4x are a lot better if I'm at f/5.6 or f/6.3.

I find the same results using the 1.4x with the 400 f/2.8

I have, in fact, gotten some awesome images at f/4 with the teleconverter, but mostly I end up having to delete everything.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Guerro, Photographer
Galloway | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:32 AM on 03.01.07
->> I am sure the 400mm is awesome to have, but unless you are shooting Pro sports or D1 where you have limited access on the sidelines it not really a must have. I have the 300mm f/2.8 IS and I use it with the 1.4 and the 2x and it works awesome, a little tailoff in quality with the 2x, but not much. The 1.4 combo is just as sharp as the 300 is alone, great quality.

I do alot of HS stuff, so the 300mm gets me plenty tight on the action, plus I can hand hold it with no problem, which is also another plus. The 300 is also great for basketball, other end of the court action and over head from the top of the bleachers.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Luke Trottier, Photographer
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 7:14 PM on 03.01.07
->> Andy,

When I first started using my 1.4x II with my 300 I found it to be soft wide open with a lot of CA. After reading some posts online I decided to take the 1.4 back to my local store. The second 1.4x II they gave me is tack sharp wide open with almost no CA.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Ramirez, Photographer
Red Bank | NJ | | Posted: 11:43 PM on 03.02.07
->> Corey

The 300 2.8 with 1.4 works well for most sports coverage. We shoot a ton of soccer and lacrosse and find that the 400 2.8 with the 1.4 gives us the reach and the numbers we need for full rounded coverage of two teams, Long sided soccer fields and HS lacrosse really benefit with the (400 2.8 and extender).

Keep in mind the trade off is the extra weight with lugging that lens..

Good luck....

 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:39 AM on 03.03.07
->> hey dude. if you havent done it up by april, im bringin my 300mm 2.8L IS and 1.4x to the academy, you can play with it all you need to.


btw. i love the combo.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Corey Perrine, Photographer
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 3:32 AM on 03.03.07
->> Thanks guys. I'm trying to get this combo through my work on a purchase order plan. I'm gonna have to sell the 400mm to pay for it. Sucks. However, it will motivate me to save $6,500 for a new 400mm in the future.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Rozema, Photographer, Assistant
Rockford | MI | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 03.03.07
->> I too also like the 300 2.8 w/ 1.4 TC for outdoor daytime sports. And love the 300 2.8 for night time football and soccer.

I always thought/heard that the 400 2.8 is the ultimate sports lens!?! I too like being able to hand hold when shooting, so this is not going to be possible with the 400?

I'm also curious about what Andy said about avoiding shooting wide open? Is that just for daytime stuff, when you are at your lowest ISO and fastest SS? Why invest in the fast glass and not use it for what it was created for? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm still learning as a sports shooter and have heard this said before but want to know why invest a ton more in a 2.8 lens than a 5.6 lens if you will get better results with the 5.6?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas Ciszek, Photographer
Edison | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:52 AM on 03.04.07
->> Chris....
To what Andy said above I was told along time ago that the optimal setting for a Lens is two stops from wide open to get the best results. For a 2.8 it would be 5.6. I have used Canon Lenses for over 20 years and have shot mainly wide open at all times but after reading this thread yesterday I shot my 300 with the 1.4 at 5.6 instead of my usual 4.0 and from what I can see the results were very good shooting Women's Lacrosse. So maybe there is something to it..

 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Rozema, Photographer, Assistant
Rockford | MI | USA | Posted: 12:53 AM on 03.05.07
->> Thanks Corey, I'll have to try it this spring to see for myself.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Canon 300mm plus 1.4x combo
Thread Started By: Corey Perrine
Member Login:

Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Putting Some Muscle Into Photography SecondFocus ::..