300 f4 vs. 400 f5.6 (sports)

[bryan k]

Hello all.

I have been shooting youth baseball with my 70-200 2.8 (I have the 1.4x tele but haven't used it much).

I need some additional reach, and was wondering if I would be better off with a 300 f4 (applying the 1.4 tele when needed, giving me a 5.6 IS) or just moving to a 400mm 5.6.

For those who have the 400mm - how useful is this lens handheld (outdoors)? I do have a monopod and tripod and obviously would rather use neither to stay "mobile" but if I need to use the mono, I'm sure I could learn to adjust...

Any comments on focus, usability, what you did/didn't like about either of the above lenses/combos would be appreciated.

Bryan

[dekalbSTEEL]

400 will probably be too much reach for youth baseball, unless you're only shooting the outfielders. Here's a shot taken with my Tokina 300 f4 of the first baseman leaping for a high throw from third. I was directly behind him, about 20 feet away.

http://jongeephotography.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p658535844-4.jpg

So I guess it depends on how far from the field you will be shooting.

I do use a monopod with this lens

[digitalfoto]

The 400mm F5.6 is an excellent lens for sharpness & focusing. It is not easy to handhold on a 1.6X body (640mm equiv).

The 300mm F4L IS is much easier to handhold, but does not give you as much focal length. A tele-converter on the 300mm F4L IS will give you 420mm, but the TC will slow focusing and reduce sharpness. The bare 400mm lens is sharper then the 300mm +1.4X TC. I am not a fan of TC's, so I have both lenses.

In good light I use the 400mm often for birding handheld, or with a monopod. The 300mm is usable in lower light.

Both are excellent lenses. If you can only have one, get the 300mm F4L IS.

[V8Rumble]

Wouldn't the 100-400 be better. That way you can take pics of the base men up close and outfielders aswell.

[dave kadolph]

I find a 300 prime to be about perfect for Baseball on a 1.6 crop.

It fills the frame nicely with infield action--and sharp enough to crop as needed for outfield action.

I shoot from the dugout at the high school level. If you are shooting from the stands your needs may be different.

My .02--Your mileage may vary. ;)

[Bubble]

For those who have the 400mm - how useful is this lens handheld (outdoors)?
Bryan

EXCELLENT. Handheld very easy. No problem. I have to say it is a bit hard to adjust your shooting style but once you know where you should stay to get the action, you will nail every single picture. No need for monopod. I have 300 f/2.8IS so i can't tell you how the 300 f/4 with TC perform. :)

Here are some horse racing pictures took by 400 f/5.6

http://vietnamet.com/photos/2.jpg

http://vietnamet.com/photos/3.jpg

[Bubble]

here are few from soccer match with 400mm f/5.6

http://vietnamet.com/dabanh/7.jpg

http://www.vietnamet.com/dabanh/2.jpg

[ed rader]

that's some nice work Bubble :D!

ed rader

[Bubble]

that's some nice work Bubble :D!

ed rader

this explain why i'm a "prime whore" :lol::lol:

[dave kadolph]

A few from yesterday

Shot down the 3'rd baseline with a 30D/300 f4.0

Not "cherry picking"

Just a representation of what to expect with a 300.

[bryan k]

Thanks for all the advice...

I forgot to mention a few things which were asked:

- I have field access, and will normally be shooting from either the dugout or near 1st or 3rd base.

- I rented the 100-400 for a few weeks as I noticed I wasn't getting the outfielders anywhere close enough, and just didn't fall in love with it like I hoped I would. I got used to the push-pull action of the zoom, but I just thought the image quality was not there... Then again I was comparing it to my 70-200 shots...

Not sure if the 100-400 would get more use in other applications (astrophotography, birds, etc) compared to the 300 prime?

Would the 300 f4 IS with 1.4TC have any better image quality compared to the 100-400 @ 400 or would they be too close to tell?

[_aravena]

I shot with my 70-200, mostly at 200, but framed everything nicely making a small semi circle with the third and first base and pitcher and everything in it. Outfield was no go. I would have like something with zoom because the 300 just wouldn't do it for me for some shots, too close.

I believe at 200 or close enough. Yes I would have liked to get closer, but I like some background sometimes like this pitcher shot.

http://a680.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/29/l_92254572e0ff65df9b311beea87e4fbf.jpg

http://a828.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/65/l_c443e11d09a3d5b9155a712dff0695e3.jpg

[ed rader]

I shot with my 70-200, mostly at 200, but framed everything nicely making a small semi circle with the third and first base and pitcher and everything in it. Outfield was no go. I would have like something with zoom because the 300 just wouldn't do it for me for some shots, too close.

I believe at 200 or close enough. Yes I would have liked to get closer, but I like some background sometimes like this pitcher shot.






those are good. did you add the vignette?

ed rader

[_aravena]

Thanks! Yeah...man, when they show up on here it's a lot more clear. I need to readjust some. At least the batting one, I still like the pitcher. I'm still getting used to Lightroom.

[Bubble]

renting cost for 300f4 or 400 f/5.6 is not that expensive. Just rent it and try it out for yourself. Better that way than doing some guess work or getting advice from us since we don't shot the same as you (condition/style)

[ed rader]

Thanks! Yeah...man, when they show up on here it's a lot more clear. I need to readjust some. At least the batting one, I still like the pitcher. I'm still getting used to Lightroom.


looks a tad underexposed. sometimes i underexpose a bit then hit the fill light slider. and i prefer fill light to brightening when i can get away with it :D.

ed rader

[_aravena]

Yeah, I've been so busy I haven't had any time to work on them and I just wanted something up. If you can tell, it's from mid spring season, so they're pretty old. The dinky stadium.

Now I have a wedding to work on, but I'm quite excited about that.

[bryan k]

renting cost for 300f4 or 400 f/5.6 is not that expensive. Just rent it and try it out for yourself. Better that way than doing some guess work or getting advice from us since we don't shot the same as you (condition/style)

You are right- I use lensrentals.com and they are both 44 bucks for a week. That's really nothing- worth that much to avoid some buyers remorse (or restocking fee)

[dave kadolph]

renting cost for 300f4 or 400 f/5.6 is not that expensive. Just rent it and try it out for yourself. Better that way than doing some guess work or getting advice from us since we don't shot the same as you (condition/style)


Truer words were never spoken ;).

My shooting partner is my wife of over 25 years.

She hates my setup and lens choice.

And I find her choices barely usable.

But they work out well when the results are combined--LOL.