Loving the new 300 2.8L ...

[HarrisonClicks]

Today at the soccer field with my son. Many of you may not like this PP, but I felt like playing around a bit. I love this new lens!!

Adam

[mike ca]

Nice composition! Im glad to see your enjoying your new 300 2.8 I don't think canon image quality gets much better! Excellent bokeh All The Best Mike

[HarrisonClicks]

Thanks Mike! Love NYC by the way. Born and raised in Great Neck.

[liam5100]

Great shot, and I like the post. But wait til you get your hands on a 400 2.8...mmmmm

[mike ca]

Hey Adam, I was married at Leonard's of Great Neck back in 87 and yes I have both 400 2.8 and the 300 2.8 both IS and new version I think the image quality of both lens are outstanding! I don't think it gets any better then these two Beauties I love the 300 because I can hand hold it if need be The 400 no way is that possible that lens always goes on my wimberley head or my monopod. Anyway enjoy your new lens and post some more photo's All The Best Mike

[DonE]

Sweet shot and awesome lens!!

[Dan-o]

I like it Adam. Glad your enjoying the lens.

[jpex]

I have an opportunity to grab a 400 2.8 II for a great price. Its the non IS version. I shoot all sports action, mostly on monopod. Is the IS really that important? I shoot a Sigma 120-300 with their version of IS and I like it. I just want that extra oomph of the 400 prime. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[pete crawford]

right or wrong, i've been shooting football with the 300 2.8 on a monopod with the is off. the pictures have been awesome.

[prime80]

I have an opportunity to grab a 400 2.8 II for a great price. Its the non IS version. I shoot all sports action, mostly on monopod. Is the IS really that important? I shoot a Sigma 120-300 with their version of IS and I like it. I just want that extra oomph of the 400 prime. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

IMO, IS is not good for field sports. The ~1/2 second delay of the IS cranking up can kill a spontaneous shot. With the typically high shutter speeds needed for sports, I don't see it being terribly beneficial anyway. The only time I leave it on is when I'm forced to use slow shutter speeds for night games or indoors.

PS: Sigma doesn't make a 120-300 with OS. Do you mean the 120-400 OS?

[cstewart]

I have an opportunity to grab a 400 2.8 II for a great price. Its the non IS version. I shoot all sports action, mostly on monopod. Is the IS really that important? I shoot a Sigma 120-300 with their version of IS and I like it. I just want that extra oomph of the 400 prime. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

For most sports you will be shooting at 1/400 shutter speed or higher and in that situation IS will not do anything for you except drain your battery faster!
If you are shooting in low light situations that are below the normal hand held range of the lens, that is usually where IS will help most. If you will be doing stuff other than sports, eg landscapes, travel, etc., then you may want to have the IS just in case. If your lens is solely for sports then I don't think you need it. I have shot baseball and hockey a lot over the last year and I have never used the IS on my 70-200 for it.

[T2000]

" Born and raised in Great Neck."

You and Andy Kaufman, Sarah Hughes and Francis Ford Coppolla (among other luminaries.)

[Palladium]

" Born and raised in Great Neck."

You and Andy Kaufman, Sarah Hughes and Francis Ford Coppolla (among other luminaries.)

I used to work in Great Neck

How about a shout out to MiddleNeck Road ;)