Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2018 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?

  
 
tomas fernande
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Hey guys, I need a longer glass to shoot sports.
I´m considering to buy an used but pristine 300mm f/2.8 (no IS) or the new 100-400 f/4-5.6 II
Yes, I know that the rule says that fixed lens has a faster AF, but, since the old 300mm was made in 1996 (or so) and the 100-400 is a new lens, which one you´d recommend for sports use in term of AF performance and IQ?

Thanks



Jan 18, 2018 at 06:48 PM
timgangloff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Define "sports" for your use. Does it include shooting at night under poor lighting or indoors with poor lighting? If so, 5.6 is not nearly enough. F4 is probably not enough.

Are you shooting just for fun or do you really want to make images that stand out? What body are you using with it?

Unfortunately, the choices you proposed are not great "sports" lenses for most serious sports shooters. The very old 300 2.8 non IS may or may not be serviced by Canon, I'm just not sure. So, you could be buying an expensive paperweight in the very near future. While shops other than Canon may be able to service the old lens, it doesnt' mean it will be easy to get parts down the road and is certainly something that should be considered. And the newer 100-400 is a great lens, but may not work at all for spors depending on what your sports needs are.

Although lacking in length, the 70-200 2.8 IS I or II is probably a better choice. Throw in a 1.4x III and you'll probably be better off than the 100-400 for probably about the same price.






Jan 18, 2018 at 07:40 PM
quivver
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Depends which sport.

If it's basketball and you're courtside then 300 f/2.8 II is probably good (perhaps even a touch long depending on where you sit). If it's football it's not long enough.

The 100-400 II is a great lens, but I wouldn't call it a 'fast action' lens. I'd want something at f/4 or faster.

Ideally you want the 400 f/2.8 II and pair that with a 70-200mm f/2.8 II for when the action is close. Best of both worlds with excellent minimum focusing distance and if you need to go long you can put a 1.4x and get 560 f/4.



Jan 23, 2018 at 04:17 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


I bought a new 300 f/2.8 non-IS back around 1993 and it is still one of the sharpest lenses I own. I find it absolutely essential for sports photography and performance is excellent even with a 1.4X if needed.

The 100-400 looks pretty sweet, though for me it is just too darn slow for poorly-lit sports venues. There is just no getting around that f/2.8 bottleneck in many stadiums, courts and fields.



Jan 23, 2018 at 04:58 PM
JohnBrose
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


the 300 f2.8 without IS is not the mark 3 version-it would be the 1st version. I would probably suggest the 100-400 over that one unless you need f2.8.


Jan 23, 2018 at 04:58 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


The 300/2.8 IS are going for arround $2300 used, looks like BH had the 100-400 II new for around $2000 - not much of a difference there for a significantly newer lens than what you are looking at. I admittedly do have skin in that game since I am trying to sell mine to finance a cross country move and eventual 200-400.

Anyway, to your direct question. Like everyone else has mentioned - it depends what you are shooting. High school sports have absolute garbage lighting so you are really looking at f/2.8 to keep the ISO reasonably elevated. Even shooting the X-Games a few years back, having f/2.8 was nice to isolate the subject relative to the background at 300. If you are shooting daylight sports then 5.6 should be fine and the 100-400 is more than up to the task from what I have been told. I would be concerned about not getting enough light to the AF sensor at night or indoors with that lens though.

Personally, I have loved using my 300/2.8 for sports. From my understanding, canon has never made a bad one. Plus you feel like a total badass lugging it around. Get a monopod if you go that route though, totally worth its weight in gold.



Jan 23, 2018 at 07:26 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


The 300. It can shoot in lower light. I’m going to caution you, I shoot an is version I, handheld, for baseball. But I can tell you that it can get heavy. Without is keeping the image stable in the view finder will be difficult but can be done.

The 100-400 ii I also have and it’s great. But less background separation and it’s 4.5 by +300, 5.6 to 400, which, if you’re shooting at night you’re basically done if you’re at 4.5-5.6



Jan 24, 2018 at 07:38 AM
schlotz
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Tomas,

Tim's response is spot on. I will reemphasize the low light constraints, f/4 and above do not cut it for fast action sports with maybe the exception of well lit NFL fields @f/4. Generally, this type of photography is the realm of fast glass i.e. f/2.8 What sport and lighting conditions are you expecting to cover?



Jan 24, 2018 at 08:56 AM
tomas fernande
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Thank you guys. I currently shoot with 2 x 1Dx, but i'll replace one with a 5d4. I was a staff photogapher in a newspaper and was able to shoot with the old 300 f/2.8 (back in the 1D times and was always solid, the 300 f2.8 IS is great and the newer 300 f/2.8 IS II is outstanding, but way too expensive for me right now. I owned the ultra heavy old 400 f/2.8 (no IS) but I sold it because was killing me. Also used the first 100-400 and it wasn't so good.
I'm going to shoot mostly rugby & soccer.
I think, considering your advices, that i should ditch the 100-400 II and go for an used 300 f/2.8 IS and an always solid 70-200 f/2.8 to start. Right?



Jan 25, 2018 at 06:39 AM
schlotz
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


Given rugby & soccer along with low light, that line up is most likely your best bet. The unfortunate part will be the limited reach of 300. Just means you choose to wait & shoot action that develops a tad closer.


Jan 25, 2018 at 10:02 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


On one hand, the new 100-400mm v2 improves on the older model (I've owned both) in several ways — better AF including in lower light, better sharpness, a different design.

However, unless you find that you need to zoom capability to cover the 100-400mm range — and I suspect that you are more likely to just shoot at the long FL given your description — AND you are shooting in pretty good light...

... the prime is probably a better option for you. (You can always add the 1.4x TC if you need a bit more reach, and you'll still be at f/4.)



Jan 25, 2018 at 12:33 PM
TrojanHorse
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


300 on a 1dx is likely to be a bit short for large field sports like soccer and rugby.
100-400 v2 is a fabulous lens but put it away when the sun starts to go down.

I like my 100-400 for what I use it for but odds are you'd prefer the look of a wide open f2.8 shot and cropping won't be a big deterrent for you on a 1dx



Jan 25, 2018 at 06:47 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


2 stops ...


Jan 25, 2018 at 07:20 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


tomas fernande wrote:
I think, considering your advices, that i should ditch the 100-400 II and go for an used 300 f/2.8 IS and an always solid 70-200 f/2.8 to start. Right?


I never had the 300/2.8 IS mk1 but with the mk2 I've found very little degradation in AF speed with the 1.4tc III and it gets me 420/4 for field sports. A 300/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 covers you for a lot of sports especially if you can move around a bit and not locked into designated media areas.

I'm lucky enough to also have the 100-400mk2 and would not give that up as I find it incredibly useful for daylight shooting for all events not just sports. I can even get by with it for twilight since the 1DX's have such good high ISO.



Jan 26, 2018 at 10:05 AM
dreamfields
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 300mm F2.8 L USM III or 100-400 II for sports?


I shoot a bunch of high school sports for our local paper. I had the 300 2.8 usm until it bricked on me. I had bought the 100-400 vII a few months before, using up all of my available gear moneys for a while which ruled out a new(er) 300. I have a 5DIII and a 7DII and I loved the 300 for football under lights on the 7DII and I would shoot soccer adding the 1.4. I will say the new 100-400 is a great sports lens with good light. When you loose the sun AF is just too slow. In summary I will be adding a latest version 300 2.8 when I can. I got five years out of the old 300. I don’t want to buy another 2k paperweight.


Jan 31, 2018 at 09:52 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.