| 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
Looking for 300mm vs. 400mm wisdom
Adam Bird, Photographer
 |
Grand Rapids | Mi | United States | Posted: 6:33 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> I might be in the position to buy either a brand new Canon 300mm IS 2.8, or a used 400mm 2.8 mark2 (non-is) for about the same price.
I've had a 300mm series 1, using it on sports, about once a week, sport in question rotating depending on the season (all of them, mostly high school, some college, some pro). Mix in a healthy dose of weddings, podium speakers, spot news and even once in a while in my studio (it's big, backing up is not a problem) for really tight compressed portraits.
This is on 5dmk2 and 1dmk3 bodies.
I've always liked the size and portability of the 300, and use it at least 3-4 times a week. I'm thinking that I'm just not going to get quite as much use out of the 400 because of the weight considerations.
But I've been borrowing a friend's 400 2.8mark2, and shot some football, some soccer, and it's been killer. Amazing. Awesome. I could get a 300 f4 for the non-sport occasions where I need lighter/smaller, which is also usually non-sports situations, and let the IS do it's magic with the slower shutter speed. Or just get the 300.
I'm looking for some wisdom from the more experienced freelancers out there. I do a fair amount of sports, and with this lens I could differentiate enough from some of the other shooters in the local market and possibly pick up more sports.
Or never use it except for field sports and wonder why I have the blasted thing.
Dunno. Thoughts? |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 7:28 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> you can always add a tc to the 300 and still have a lighter and longer version than the 400...
personally it is all preference. I love my 300 and havent found a reason to upgrade to anything longer quite yet. (hopefully ever.. because Im already poor). But it really comes down to preference. |
|
Charles Baus, Photographer
|
Palm Springs, Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> I have both a 300/2.8 and a 400/2.8. I use the 300 only for basketball (opposite court) and sometimes with tennis. I use my 400 for everything else.
I would go with a 400 without hesitation and I am pretty sure your going to hear the same thing from everyone else that responds. |
|
Margaret Bowles, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:57 PM on 11.22.09 |
| ->> You might want to do a search of the message board because there have been several threads about this topic. However, I suggest you spend the money on whichever lens will result in the best return on your investment. It sounds like you use your 300 a lot to generate income. Are you planning to keep it or do you have to sell it to get your "new" lens? Yes, a 400 is great for football and soccer, but what kind of income will you generate from using that lens? You mention you might be able to "pick up more sports," but I'm not clear what that means. Are you thinking you will shoot on spec or will you use it to sell more photos to parents? If you're thinking about getting a 400 to shoot on spec, it will take you about 200 years to recoup that investment. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:07 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> +1 what Margaret said.
I've got both. Depends entirely on the kind of sports you shoot and what level.
Having said that, I've always used my 300mm more. Fast, flexible and useful for almost any sport, plus news and features. If you shoot a lot of pro soccer or D1/NFL and are profitable, then the 400 would make good sense.
If I had to pick one, it'd be the 300mm. Get a TC. Save up and get a used 400 down the road. The amount of Canon stuff that's for sale, that shouldn't be a issue.
IF you're considering the new MIV and it works, AND Canon comes out with a 200-400mm f4 similar to Nikon's zoom, that could be a alternative down the road.
Michael |
|
Adam Bird, Photographer
|
Grand Rapids | Mi | United States | Posted: 10:03 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> @Margaret, I never shoot spec., I believe in getting paid for my photographs. There are a few limited but present options for marketing sports photography, not just parents but a number of local colleges with developed programs. With the 400 I could potentially (key word) lever a more professional product for increased work. I already am using my 300 to make a living, and am wondering how much better a 400 could be in it's stead.
That said, @Michael, lthough I am profitable, I don't shoot much for D1/NFL. Hence the delicacy of the decision. There is a chance that with a little marketing effort, I could lever the 400 into more money. I did not, however, think about what would happen if Canon does come out with a 200-400 f4, you to whom I tip my hat for the thought. I am considering the Mark4, and more then likely Canon is going to have some pretty interesting new lens offerings at the same time, and I'm still waiting to see just what production samples are capable of.
So at this point I guess it's a wait and see attitude, and if I don't see any new lens stuff, I might as well jump at the 400.
I've searched, but I just want confirmation for my own peace of mind- it's the series 1 400 2.8 that Canon no longer repairs, not the Series 2? If Canon won't fix the series 2, well, then no 400 for me. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:20 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> I no longer shoot Canon, I've switched back to Nikon, but I believe Canon no longer services either the Series 1 or II lenses. I believe IS is it for them. Others do still service the lenses. Canon users will need to verify.
I'm considering selling my 400mm f 2.8 Nikon to fund the 200-400mm. The D3 will easy handle to 1 stop difference.
Michael |
|
Adam Bird, Photographer
|
Grand Rapids | Mi | United States | Posted: 11:24 PM on 11.22.09 |
->> I'm going to call Canon tomorrow about something else, I'll also inquire about the service policy, just to check. I searched here and found lots about the 300 & 400 series one, but not much about the 2 and repairs woes with that lens. I might not have used broad enough search terms though.
Thanks for the input! |
|
John Pyle, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | Ca | USA | Posted: 12:13 AM on 11.23.09 |
->> Adam,
I was once in your shoes. I opted for the 300 2.8.and 1.4 T.C. It was a great combo for awhile, but found myself shooting mostly pro/college football and baseball and needed the additional reach of the 400 (I even use a 1.4 T.C. on it at times). At the pro level for these particular sports, you will find that most photographers use the 400 2.8. The first Canon 400 2.8 I had was the MK 1 (first of the big white 400's)it was not quite sharp enough and did not focus fast enough for my liking. I then bought the MK II version which is very sharp and focuses quickly, as it was totaly redesigned. This lens is a tad heavier than the I.S. version but virtualy the same in performance. Canon will not work on them, but there are some very capable repair shops that will. There are some other threads regarding the same topic (300 vs. 400) around here as well. I am in the process of switching to Nikon and happen to have a 400 2.8 MK II listed here on S.S. if you are interested. I know how it is when you are going to invest a chunk of change into something, it's always best to do your research. Dont rush into anyhthing. Good luck! |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 1:41 AM on 11.23.09 |
| ->> If you do a healthy dose of weddings, I would think about updating your wedding kit and keeping your current 300v1. If you already have everything, I would get the 300 as its more versatile. If you were doing HS prints, I would say get the 400 though. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 3:12 AM on 11.23.09 |
| ->> I have both a 300 2.8 and a 400 2.8 I use the 400 for almost everything sports related. 300 for down court in basketball. The 400 produces a different feel to the images, if that makes any sense. |
|
Colin Heyburn, Photographer
|
ARMAGH | NI | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:47 AM on 11.23.09 |
| ->> Go for a new 400mm f2.8 IS. It costs a little more but if you can afford it you will not regret it. The 400 will isolate the subject from the background and give you superior definition in all circumstances. Again it depends on what you want it for. I shoot sports and have never found a situation where I did not need it. I use a 70 -200 for the close in stuff. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 6:21 AM on 11.23.09 |
| ->> If a new 300 or an old 400 is your ONLY option. I'd go with the 300 IS and pick up a 1.4x extender. When the 400 USM motor dies and you find out Canon no longer services it, you'll be cursing yourself over such an elaborate paper weight. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 11.23.09 |
| ->> In fact, there is such a thread right now discussing Canon's refusal to service the 400 II and the place the gentleman did find that will repair it has had it several months and communication with the repair facility has apparently been poor. I would go with a new 300 IS, buy the 1.4 and have peace of mind with the warranty and something that is currently serviced by Canon. My 2. |
|
Alex Boyce, Photographer
|
central italy | n/a | italy | Posted: 12:13 PM on 11.23.09 |
->> i have the 300, i use it for motorcross and anything else i shoot, indoors as well, with a 1.3 body it is like having a 400 so it makes little difference to go buy a 400, but maybe if you do field sports a 400 or bigger is important, i personally dont need anythign bigger than the 300 with a 1.4 tele, unless i shoot surf, then i need a 600, the 300 though can be difficult to use to get the focus rigth so the 400 must be harder as you cant hand hold a 400 2.8 like you can a 300, that lens is sharp anad amazing and can be handheld easily, the 400 i think is a mono pod only lens unless you are godzilla, and with a mono pod you loose flexibilty for sure...
The 300 with a tele convertor will not leave you out in the cold, and is smaller to carry and more flexible, the 400 is a nice lens, but costs more and if its not a new one i would think twice about it you wont really gain extra benefit really.
You will never regret a 300mm is version and a tele, that lens is so amazing and sharp you can see it on the lcd on the back of the cam, seriously a good lens really good, im stunned everytime i use it... |
|
Adam Bird, Photographer
|
Grand Rapids | Mi | United States | Posted: 7:12 AM on 11.27.09 |
->> I've got an have a 1.4 extender, love it. I had a 300mm f/2.8 but it got killed while covering an event, and it's looking like Canon will not be able to fix it, leaving me with some insurance money. I've had a 300 one way or another for about 8 years, so I'm familiar with that lens. The 400mm would have to be the Mark 2, and if that's not supported by Canon anymore, I'll not take the jump on a paper weight. I'll see what I can find for a 400 IS, I can throw a few grand into the mix, but not an additional $3k, especially with the 1dmk4 coming.
As far as the rest of my wedding kit, I'm solid. I'm starting to buy more prime lenses for specific situations, but I've got a couple 5dmk2s which are great for that work, and 1dmk3 for sports. Can't wait to see the marriage of the two in the new D body.
I'm off to more research on the 400 IS, see what I can find. @louis Lopez I know exactly what you mean when you say that the pictures are just 'different.' That's the only reason that I'm considering buying one in the first place. |
|
Kevin Krows, Photographer
 |
Forsyth | IL | USA | Posted: 10:33 AM on 11.27.09 |
->> My suggestion is that you have a long term plan to buy both of these new. I think you'll find that both have their place in a sports photographers collection of lenses and I don't think you'll regret having both.
Start with the 2.8L 300 IS 1.4TC to get you by untill you can purchase the 2.8L 400 IS. The 1.4TC is outstanding on both of these lenses and also does a great job on the 2.8L 70-200mm so it's a good investment.
OK, I know it's only money, but finding really good quality 300 and 400 L glass is rare. I sold my 2.8L 300 IS earlier this year which I now regret doing. That's why I'm buying a new 2.8L 300 IS by the end of the year. I really miss shooting basketball defense with it as well as tennis and swimming. Like I said, the 300 and 400 both have their place in your collection.
Just my personal thoughts. |
|
Joseph Tames, Photographer
|
Lakeside | AZ | | Posted: 4:22 AM on 11.30.09 |
->> I had both...gave up the 400 and have regretted it ever since.
I even used the 400 in basketball and volleyball: missed a lot of shots that the 300 would have got but when it hit WOW.
Just my 2 cents... |
|
William Purnell, Photographer
|
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 8:48 PM on 12.01.09 |
->> I use my 400 for most things as well, 300 for basketball and volleyball at times.
Football, baseball, soccer... all 400 2.8. Great with a 1.4tc on it for baseball outfield work.
I've heard very few people regret purchasing a 400 2.8. |
|
Richard Orr, Photographer
|
Longmeadow | MA | USA | Posted: 2:43 PM on 12.02.09 |
| ->> I too had both. Sold the 400mm last year. I miss it. A lot. Especially during football and soccer season. During the winter I dont miss it as much. But come spring I have got to find something better than the 300 with the TC. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|