400mm2.8 or 300mm2.8 + 1.4TC?

[Muffin Princess]

Right, looking to get a nice big telephoto lens so I'm not forced to use my 70-200 f2.8 L IS + 1.4TC all the time.

So, how much difference in quality and AF speeds is there really between the 300mm f2.8 L IS with a 1.4 TC and the 400mm f2.8 L IS?

The only reason I'm considering the 300mm is it's size and weight, so much more easy to lug around than the 400mm.

[Incomplete Pete]

Oops, that was me forgetting to sign out of girlfriend's account!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Virtually no difference..
Arguably the 300mm is slightly faster and better,. but I do not think the differnce would be at all evident.. not even remotely.

They are Canon's sharpest and fastest focusing lenses. Both are excellent with T-cons.
The weight on the 400mm is killer though.

[Medic1]

Right, looking to get a nice big telephoto lens so I'm not forced to use my 70-200 f2.8 L IS + 1.4TC all the time.

So, how much difference in quality and AF speeds is there really between the 300mm f2.8 L IS with a 1.4 TC and the 400mm f2.8 L IS?

The only reason I'm considering the 300mm is it's size and weight, so much more easy to lug around than the 400mm.

Wow....I would say either are good choices. I was struggling between the 300 f4 and the 400 5.6..........oh to be able to afford the 2.8........ :)

Good Luck with your choice....I'd say out of these two lenses, you'd be pretty happy with either

[ssim]

Hard to go wrong with the 300. This is very much a handholdable lens. It is incredibly sharp. I had to look up the weight difference between the 300 and the 400. What a difference. I'd say go for the 300.

[Incomplete Pete]

Thanks for that.

Only thing that tempts me about the 400mm is the versatility in that it's got the reach without resorting to TCs....hm...I never thought this would be so hard!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Well, the 300mm is half the weight, $2,600 bucks cheaper, and would be well complimented by your 1.4x TC. Seems more practical to me, but I don't know your uses..... with that lens you'd have the 70-200mm reach, then a 300mm reach, and then a 420mm reach with the t-con. Seems like a good range to me. The 400mm does have a very nice reach though! I donno, up to you. The 300 just seems more practical to me.

I truely envy your ability to afford such lenses.......:-)

[pcasciola]

Price aside, that's a tough choice, especially if you are using it for sports. They are both great lenses, but I think the 400/2.8L is more common among pro sports photographers than the 300/2.8L, especially for large field sports like soccer and NFL football. The 300mm does seem to be a good length for pro baseball though.

While I am very impressed with the shots I've seen with the 300/2.8L and 1.4x as well as the 2x extenders, you'd be shooting at f/4 and f/5.6, and will not have the same speed and shallow DOF as you would with the 400/2.8.

I'm considering selling my 300/4L IS and Sigma 500/4.5 to get one of those two lenses, and while I could get enough to get me close to the 300/2.8L IS, I'm still about $3500 away from getting the 400/2.8L IS.:(

[Momo]

Hi,

I don't know about the 400, but the 300mm was the limit I did not want to go beyooin, considering weight and size.

I was told that the 300 mm could give good results even with a 2x converter, which I doubted a litlle

Until I tried and it's really stunning.

Here's a sample :

http://k43.pbase.com/u13/joubert/large/41708335._MG_0766.jpg

[Incomplete Pete]

How much AF speed does the 2xTC knock off though? Will be coupled to a 1D MkII.

[grego]

Well if you are going sports, you should take the 400 if price isn't a concern. And generally, you should have a monopod so weight isn't as much of an issue there, except when carrying it around.
You can't go wrong with either though. It's your money. :)

[gmen]

Pete... I frequently shoot with the 300mm + 1.4x extender. That combo is optically excellent even wide open at f/4 - so no problems there. A lot of the images I have posted here are shot with that combination.

I sometimes appreciate being able to hand hold the 300mm lens - some of my speedway shots are handheld at 300mm over the air barrier - something that is practically impossible with the 400mm.

The main reason I would consider the 400mm is to be able to work at f/2.8 rather than f/4 (with the 300mm +1.4x) which would come in very useful for the middle part of the football season and for night games. Also, the 400mm will allow you to throw those backgrounds even further out of focus at the same working distance.

However, when I finally take the plunge and purchase the 400mm f/2.8, I will most likely keep the 300mm as some sporting venues are a little smaller than others and lend themselves to that focal length.

Bottom line is that the 300mm is a fantastic investment. I'd say only go for the 400mm if your funds really allow for it. Either way you won't be disappointed. Good luck with what you choose.

With regards to the 300mm + 2x extender - yep... the AF slows a little but the results are still good... better still if you stop down 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. The cricket pics here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76315 are at 600mm f/6.3 or f/7.1.

[Incomplete Pete]

Gavin,

Thanks for the advice, will sit down and take some careful consideration. Funds aren't really an issue, so gotta weight up my options and what else I could buy with the difference between the 300 and the 400!

[graycat]

Gmen

Sorry for being late to this topic. I am also considering the 300mm 2.8L and doing some forum reading for background prior to purchase. I read your remarks then I looked at your cricket shots. Did I understand correctly that you shot them with a 300 and the 2x tc? Also, what was distance to the subjects? I shoot mostly kid sports - soccer and baseball, but am considering doing rodeo stuff. A 400mm would be nice but that seems a little long for kid stuff. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks

[Cadwell]

Of course, there are trade-offs for this convenience. The 1.4x and 2x Extenders cost 1 or 2 f/stops respectively. This means, for example, that a 300mm f/2.8 lens when used with a 2x extender becomes a 600mm f/5.6. Additionally, EF Extenders reduce lens drive speed.
As noted in the instruction sheets supplied with the Extenders, the EF 1.4x or 1.4x II
reduces lens drive speed by approximately 50~67% depending on the lens in use. The EF
2x or 2x II reduces lens drive speed by up to approximately 75%. This speed reduction
gives the AF system more time to detect focus. This is helpful since the depth of focus is reduced with the longer effective focal length and the chance of defocus increases.
However, the reduced tracking speed and smaller maximum apertures (that sometimes
result in the loss of cross-type sensor focus detection as mentioned in the description of
the 45-point Area AF Sensor at the beginning of this document) caused by the use of
Extenders can be a disadvantage with fast moving subjects, particularly in low light.

From the Section "EF Extender Issues" written by Chuck Westfall, Director Techincal / Marketing dept. Canon USA.

[unners]

what are you shooting?