For most fast action are you using f/4 or f/2.8 most often?

[butterfly2937]

I am just wondering as I am considering either the Canon 300 f/4 IS or the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS how often are you shooting below f/4? Are all your low-light and indoor shots below f/4 most of the time? Just trying to gauge how much more useful the f/2.8 version will really be for the price.

[McBride61]

What sports are you trying to shoot? Will you be using strobes? What do you use now? Just trying to get more info. :)

[Joe Cyr]

It totally depends on the day (weather). Some days f4 or f5.6 are suffice. Dark cloudy days (which are plentiful in spring where I am) sometimes even at 2.8 you have to crank up the ISO to get sufficient shutter speed.

And yes, all of my indoor shots are at 2.8. Or even 1.8 with the 85, unless I use flash.

[Dennis Valet]

Indoor 2.8 is a must unless you have flash

[Medic85]

I am just wondering as I am considering either the Canon 300 f/4 IS or the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS how often are you shooting below f/4? Are all your low-light and indoor shots below f/4 most of the time? Just trying to gauge how much more useful the f/2.8 version will really be for the price.


You are aware of the price differences, right? I'd have to agree with what you've already been told though, indoors, nothing slower than 2.8 unless you can use flash.

[butterfly2937]

It totally depends on the day (weather). Some days f4 or f5.6 are suffice. Dark cloudy days (which are plentiful in spring where I am) sometimes even at 2.8 you have to crank up the ISO to get sufficient shutter speed.

And yes, all of my indoor shots are at 2.8. Or even 1.8 with the 85, unless I use flash.

I currently use mostly my 70-200 IS f2.8. I shoot both wildlife and sports mostly outdoor but occasionally indoor dog events and horse shows both indoor and outside all kind of different light. I want to add another longer lens for both sports and wildlife and want a 300 that I can use TC on to extend the reach when needed. I have really narrowed my choices to the 300 f/4 IS or 300 f/2.8. I rarely can use a tripod. The IQ of both are excellent I am just trying to make sure the extra stops on the 2.8 are really going to justify the price. Also the 2.8 is twice as heavy.

[canonnoob]

It totally depends on the day (weather). Some days f4 or f5.6 are suffice. Dark cloudy days (which are plentiful in spring where I am) sometimes even at 2.8 you have to crank up the ISO to get sufficient shutter speed.

And yes, all of my indoor shots are at 2.8. Or even 1.8 with the 85, unless I use flash.

x100%... this is totally true...

For example, I shoot college sports and highschool sports (see my site for examples- I have the college shots hidden so shoot me a pm if you want to see them). I have to crank my ISO even at 2.8 on a dark cloudy day.. It also depends on the sport. baseball usually needs 1/1000th or faster to stop action. while basketball can usually go with 1/500th or 1/640th... So it really depends on the following and then some:


Indoor or outdoor?
Flash or no flash?
What kind of sport, and how fast of a shutter speed do you need to stop sports?

as far as going with your choices, if you have cash for the 300 2.8 IS then get it. It is better to have the 2.8 and not need it, than to not have it and need it.

[MJPhotos24]

2.8 almost all the time for a shallow DOF (though with the 400 can go to f/4 and still have it depending on how tight on the player I am) - only time I go up is with the 1.4 attached or shooting a sport like wrestling that has body parts flying all over from two people that you want clear.

[pixelphotographer]

for the quality and sharpness and low light capability ALWAYS 2.8
It makes that pretty blurred background everyone loves to isolate the subject when doing any kind of photography.
I have the 17-35 2.8
100mm 2.8
70-200 2.8
and 400mm 2.8
I wouldnt buy something else if I could get a lens that has 2.8 as a possibility. You can also close down your aperture if needed on a lens. But if you aint got it to open up then you just stuck.

[Dan-o]

You can shoot @F4 with a 2.8 but you can't shoot @2.8 with an F4. :) There will be many times where you wish you would have bought the 2.8 instead, but it is quite a price difference. If you want to use a 1.4TC on it then the F4 will be used even less. Here are some shots all with 300 2.8 and 1.4TC (420MM) from last week. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=679833

[MT Stringer]

For sports, the f/2.8 aperature helps soften the background. That's really true when the backstop is so distracting with parents hanging all over the fence.
Mike

[butterfly2937]

You can shoot @F4 with a 2.8 but you can't shoot @2.8 with an F4. :) There will be many times where you wish you would have bought the 2.8 instead, but it is quite a price difference. If you want to use a 1.4TC on it then the F4 will be used even less. Here are some shots all with 300 2.8 and 1.4TC (420MM) from last week. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=679833

Fabulous work! Yes I can see saving for the 2.8 is the way to go. I know it's expensive but the results speak for themselves! I love seeing everyones pics it really helps me see the full capabilities of the lens. Keep the pics coming!!!

[Sledhed]

I shoot at 2.8 most of the time.

[butterfly2937]

I shoot at 2.8 most of the time.
I saw the photos on your website. They are breath-taking! I am sold. I love seeing all the great shots you guys have taken with this lens! I will be saving quickly for this purchase the results are exactly what I want to achieve!

[Lacks_focus]

Indoor sports. I sometimes wonder why my 70-200 2.8 even has aperture blades. As far as I'm concerned, Canon could just offer a cheaper 2.8 model with no aperture blades at all and call it done! Most of the time 2.8 is too slow!

[butterfly2937]

Indoor sports. I sometimes wonder why my 70-200 2.8 even has aperture blades. As far as I'm concerned, Canon could just offer a cheaper 2.8 model with no aperture blades at all and call it done! Most of the time 2.8 is too slow!
So what is your solution? Increasing ISO or using a 580 EX 11?

[Lacks_focus]

So what is your solution? Increasing ISO or using a 580 EX 11?

I was kidding about the aperture blades... A balance of higher ISO with acceptable shutter speed to produce acceptable image quality. Which typically means f/2.8 @ 1600 or 3200 and time the shots to minimize motion blur!

[Roy Webber]

Luckily I live on an island in contstant sunshine, and can get awy with F8 without any issues.

[bobbyz]

So what is your solution? Increasing ISO or using a 580 EX 11?


Get 200mm f1.8 or the newer 200mm f2 IS with a low noise high ISO body.

[namasste]

2.8 almost all the time for a shallow DOF (though with the 400 can go to f/4 and still have it depending on how tight on the player I am) - only time I go up is with the 1.4 attached or shooting a sport like wrestling that has body parts flying all over from two people that you want clear.
completely agree.

[Sledhed]

I saw the photos on your website. They are breath-taking! I am sold. I love seeing all the great shots you guys have taken with this lens! I will be saving quickly for this purchase the results are exactly what I want to achieve!


Well thank you very much and welcome to the forum.

Chris

[butterfly2937]

Get 200mm f1.8 or the newer 200mm f2 IS with a low noise high ISO body.

For me the 300 f/2.8 will be more useful. I love the 6.3fps of the 50D plus the crop factor helps me out a bunch too. If I ever add another body though I might consider it but I love the 50D and the fact that it is a little lighter with all these heavy lenses works a little better for me.

[namasste]

Well thank you very much and welcome to the forum.

Chris
I love the self portrait avatar you've gone with Chris. Nice shot of you!

[Dan-o]

I would loose the Saulk stash though.

[Dan-o]

Luckily I live on an island in contstant sunshine, and can get awy with F8 without any issues.

It is more of an isolation thing then a light thing. I know you shoot a lot of surfing where you don't have to worry about distracting back grounds.

[Carnifex]

I use a 300/4 for most of my sports. If i could afford it I would have a 400 2.8, but for now the 300 works. I use it on a Mark III so I can bump the ISO up to 3200 and with some NR the images look great. It is also lighter and more portable than the 300 2.8. I've used the 300/4 indoors when shooting UNC basketball at 3200 and couldn't be happier with the results. If you can afford the 2.8 go for it. When I need 2.8 I have one that I can borrow, but i almost always use the 300/4. Sure 400 at 5.6 doesn't have the same beautiful bokeh as at 2.8, but for the price and weight it does the trick, and clients are happy with the results.

[bobbyz]

For me the 300 f/2.8 will be more useful. I love the 6.3fps of the 50D plus the crop factor helps me out a bunch too. If I ever add another body though I might consider it but I love the 50D and the fact that it is a little lighter with all these heavy lenses works a little better for me.


I agree 300mm f2.8 is more versatile but it depends on what you shoot. If you shoot indoors where you can't use flash, f2.8 is restrictive IMHO.

[Zivnuska]

for the quality and sharpness and low light capability ALWAYS 2.8
It makes that pretty blurred background everyone loves to isolate the subject when doing any kind of photography.


I wouldnt buy something else if I could get a lens that has 2.8 as a possibility. You can also close down your aperture if needed on a lens. But if you aint got it to open up then you just stuck.

The 300 f/2.8 is terrific and I shoot it at f/2.8 90% if the time.