| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
lens upgrade
John Germ, Photographer
 |
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:25 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> OK folks - finally considering an upgrade later this summer (depending on some financial things) of my workhorse outdoor lens - Sigma 120-300 2.8. It's a great lens but just doesn't have the consistent sharpness/ WOW that the Canon 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 have. So, here's the choice:
Canon 300mm 2.8 plus 1.4x TC
or
Canon 400mm 2.8 (which will require debt to finance).
I shoot mostly HS and youth sports - so football, soccer, baseball, softball, plus the typical indoor sports. Given the debt-factor of the 400mm do those that have used both for the above mentioned sports think it's worth the extra money? Or would the 300mm plus 1.4 be enough. Obviously Soccer and Baseball are my biggest worries but with plenty of day games would the 300+TC really be enough (I don't like the way my 120-300 works with TC but from what I've seen the Canon 300mm 2.8 works great with one). |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> When I was shooting Canon, my 300/2.8 was the most ridiculously sharp lens I'd ever seen. I shot it with the 1.4x with great results. I'm sure the 400 would be gorgeous - but with the price difference I'm not sure if it would be worth it. The 400 also can be limiting...almost too tight for some things. |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer
|
Yuma | AZ | usa | Posted: 12:47 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> John -
Your lens choice depends on a couple factors.
1. What camera are you using and how well does it perform in low light? That'll help in determining whether you can get away with f4.
2. Since you're using a 300mm already, how badly do you need to get to 400mm? If you only need to go longer for a few sports as opposed to majority of your work, the 300-converter combo is good.
3. What's the cost comparison between the 300mm and 400mm and will you be able to make extra money to pay the difference down the road if you go with the 400?
4. How's your access? Can you move around to make up for the 100mm difference without the converter?
I'd go with the 400mm for a lot of reasons, but if you're creative, you can find ways around not having one. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> I can't speak about those 2.8 teles, but I know what my approach would be...
Back in my pre-EOS film days, I had a quite good Tokina 300/2.8 lens that was my sports workhorse lens.
When I slowly moved into the DSLR age a couple of years ago, I got a 70-200/2.8 EF lens. Wanting more reach, I bought an old, but sharp 300/4.0 non-IS lens. It's done a great job for me.. I shoot mostly daylight stuff, so the slower aperture hasn't been a big deal. I do use a 1.4 extender on the 300 at sporting events. I've had good results..
I'd like to be able to upgrade, but I don't think upgrading to a 300/2.8 is good move for me.. I'd still have the same reach as my 300/4.. I can't justify spending anywhere from $2500 to $3500 for either an IS or non-IS 300/2.8.. If I'm going to spend the big bucks, I might as well get the extra 100mm reach that a 400 offers in addition to the faster aperture.
If you don't have a 300, it makes better sense to buy the 300/2.8 and use an extender. The 300 would offer more flexibility than the 400..
I think the amount on indoor shooting you do would be the determining factor in choosing a 300 or 400.. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> shooting with a 1dmkIII. Obviously night work would be without TC. I'm comfortable with football at 300mm (400 would be better but not as limiting as it is with baseball and soccer). I have field access for everything I shoot but for baseball and soccer that really doesn't help - 300mm is still short. But that's where I'm hoping the TC comes in. Where I dislike the results with my 120-300 I'm hopeful it would be more viable with the canon prime. Unfortunately I can't predict that the 400mm would produce an extra $3k in revenue over the 300 plus 1.4 combo. Also, again I think 400 might be too tight for softball or little kids (I have 70-200 2.8 but 300mm is just about right for softball). Track is a wash. So really it comes down to the added reach of 400mm for nighttime football and 400mm 2.8 for soccer/baseball vs. the 420mm 4.0 using the 300+TC combo. my heart says 400mm but my brain says if I have only 1 the 300mm is the better business decision. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> I'd go with the 300.
If the 300 is too loose, you can crop. If the 400 is too tight, you're SOL.
It's smaller and lighter, making transportation easier.
The 400 will put you in debt. Not good if you're not sure that you'll make the money back versus buying the 300.
With the $3k you save, you'll be able to promote yourself more, buy a second body to use with the 70-200 simultaneously with the Mark III/300 combo, or pay some other bills. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:12 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> John another vote on the 300 and add the 1.4 or 1.7 if you need to reach. Debt at this point in time with the uncertainty of where/how things will shake out isn't a good idea. |
|
Matt Brown, Photographer
|
Fullerton | CA | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> Go with the 400! You don't want to crop after the fact. Shoot it right the first time. |
|
Russell Rinn, Photographer
|
Georgetown | Tx | USA | Posted: 1:18 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> John,
I shoot the same events as you, ie. predominantly HS sports and some D1. A few years back I bought a used 300/2.8 non-is for a ridiculously low price. No way I could have afforded a new 300 much less a 400. The 300 really changed how I was able to shoot sports and, because of that, I ultimately got a 400 a year later...and was able to pay cash for it.
I love the 400, but the 300 is my most used lens of any lens I have. Perfect for basketball as well. Yes, it is too short for most field sports, but you can definitely make it work...and the price is right. Of course that being said, I saw a 400 in the classifieds for $3000 the other day. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> Wait...Canon doesn't make a 1.7x TC, do they? If so, how have I missed that all these years? |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> I would get the 400 and keep the 120-300 or get rid of the 120 -300 pick up a 70-200 get 2 1.4 extenders. In other words a 400 2.8 and a 70-200 . I had the sigma I regarded it as a nice hs sports lens but not a pro magazine sharp lens. PS if shooting with 1.6 crop cameras I might just go with the 300 2.8 |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 05.08.09 |
| ->> John, I would have to side with those who are suggesting the 300 2.8 combo. I think some of the folks suggesting the 400 aren't really looking at what you shoot. You say you're shooting youth league and HS sports? Well the 400 is going to be WAY too tight for youth sports...plus a 300 with the extender gives you a longer lens than the 400 IF you decide you want to be real tight. If you're using the Mark lll you'll be fine for the most part at most (night) football games with the 300 (ISO 2500). I have found you WILL NOT be able to use the 400 for high school basketball....most gyms are too tight and you can barely get away with a 300 from the floor. Personally I also find using the 400 on the floor at even a college game is just a little too tight to get consistant good reults (although as a caveat I will say I know a bunch of people who are so good they can shoot with a 400. Any that's my two cents. good luck |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> John, in my earlier Canon days I owned both ( I switched back to the dark side). Both lenses are sharp. I believe that Mr. Liddy is correct. BUT, just to be on the safe side, here's the question: How far "back" from the action are you?
If you're quite a distance, the 400 is the right call. The 300mm is the most used lens in my aresenal. I shot NFL with the 400, along with soccer and baseball. You can use a 300 and get good results on HS baseball and soccer.
Michael |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 05.08.09 |
->> John,
If you plan to be a pro shooter, dedicate all your income from coming from photography, then I would go with the lens that would lend you the best adaptability to shoot more assignments that will make you money: the 300 combo.
The 400 is spectacular, but not as versatile for the money-right now. You said the lens would put you into debt, and unless you know what your guaranteed income will be, and how soon out of debt you we be out (say, within a fiscal quarter or two) then you would be wise to not get it yet.
Instead, make money off the 300. And aspire to the 400. Make it a goal to stair step as a business owner, and then I think you will be the happier for it. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:02 AM on 05.09.09 |
| ->> Kevin you caught me! I'm a dark-sider, what do I know? I assumed that Canon had 1.7 I love mine on a 300 for daytime football. |
|
Paul Nelson, Photographer
|
Temperance | MI | USA | Posted: 9:29 AM on 05.09.09 |
| ->> In a time where money may be a serious factor in paying for additional reach, why not factor in the 400 f/5.6 L lens to suppliment a 300 f/2.8? The f/5.6 goes for about $1,200-ish new and will give you reach in good day events without breaking the bank. It won't be useful at night and doesn't have IS or weathersealing (may be deal breakers), but that's a fair trade-off given the very low price tag. This doesn't match the 400 f/2.8 for obvious reasons, but as stated, you need to generate the revenue to justify. I'd rather have the reach and a few trade-offs than no reach and always trying to compensate for it. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 9:41 AM on 05.09.09 |
->> Thanks for the idea Paul. I already own the 100-400L I just hate shooting at 5.6 - the backgrounds I have to deal with (typical HS and youth backgrounds) make 5.6 too unpleasant.
Lots of good info here. Definitely some things to chew on over the next 2 months. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|