Need Advice re: 200/1.8 vs 300/2.8 vs 400/5.6

[canonsnob]

I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary

[canonnoob]

I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary

It wouldnt be bad.. But canon does not service the 200 1.8 anymore so if anything goes down youll be out either alot of money for the fix or a very heavy, yet cool, paper weight.

Honestly, the 200 1.8 does not seem to take TCs well, but that is just from this test chart...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=432&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=2

[H20boy]

Not sure how often this has happened... coincidence? (see attachment)

Now, as for your question, If it were me, and I didn't already have the Sigma 120-300/2.8...and I had a little more money available, I'd try to find a first gen 300/2.8 non-IS, match it with a 1.4x canon TC when needed. You may have to be patient, they don't come up on the used market that often. Here is one on Ebay right now (http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-300mm-300-f-2-8-f-2-8L-f2-8L-f2-8-L-USM_W0QQitemZ260562802912QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera _Lenses?hash=item3caac0d8e0), good price if you ask me.

You're in the right mindset though, 2.8 is where its at for the very best sports images.

[RCB]

The 200 1.8 and extenders gives you great flexibility but more than likely you will suffer in the IQ and AF speed dept with the 2X attached; however, if you need that range, and you are limited in what you have or can purchase, then that might be the best combo for you right now.

In my case, I went with the 300 2.8 and purchased a 7D to use as a second body. I now can roughly shoot at the equivalent of 400 2.8 when shooting night games with the 7D or use the 1.4 extender and my 1D during the day. The plus is that the 300 2.8 is a great down the court basketball lens and just about perfect for volleyball shooting from the end court up in the stands. This combo is the right choice for me now but like you if I could justify the 400 2.8 I would have one in my bag.

[Zivnuska]

I love shooting sports, but I do not have the money for a 400/2.8. Currently, I have a 400/5.6, but I was wondering about doing the following:

200/1.8 with a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.

It's cheaper than a 300/2.8, gives me a wider open option and, because of its sharpness, I was thinking that the extenders wouldn't be a problem. Of course, being so sharp, I could also crop more heavily when subjects are not so close.

What do you think of this idea?

Thanks.

Gary

What sports do you like to shoot? At what levels? Is your shooting all daytime or do you shoot sports such as Friday night high school football that start out before sundown and extends into night?

[clickclickclick]

I would go with the 300 2.8. But you do know you can get a 400 2.8 Non-Is for the same price as a 300 2.8 IS.

[canonsnob]

Phil, I like to shoot rugby, Scottish Games field events, baseball, football--mostly college level shot outdoors. Once a year I do a night high school game.

[canonsnob]

Luke, I haven't seen a non-IS 400/2.8 anywhere. Where should I look? Is the lens quality the same as for the IS version?

Thanks.

Gary

[canonsnob]

P.S. to Luke--why would you take the 300/2.8 IS over the 400/2.8 non-IS?

[clickclickclick]

Luke, I haven't seen a non-IS 400/2.8 anywhere. Where should I look? Is the lens quality the same as for the IS version?

Thanks.

Gary

P.S. to Luke--why would you take the 300/2.8 IS over the 400/2.8 non-IS?
You miss understood what I was saying. I meant to say out of the lenses you posted I would take the 300mm. But for same price I would just get the 400mm 2.8 Non-IS. Also check Fred Miranda for a 400. That is where I picked mine up.

[J.Napier]

No self respecting canon snob should be without a 200 1.8 maybe even two.
All kidding aside I have a 200 1.8 and I use it all the time and with the 1.4 TC with great results and no discerable IQ loss. I do have 2x but rarely use it at all. In fact most all my Maxpreps football from last season was done with the 200 1.8 and the 1.4 TC.
I did recently see a 400 non IS on sportshooter and I do belive it is also listed on the Portland CL right now as well.If I could swing it I'd be all over it myself. And it wont cost you much more than a 200 1.8.
It is my understanding that you can still get the 1.8 repaired at certain places for some issues. All depends out what the problem is but yes it is still somewhat of a gamble.
I think the 300 2.8 may be a more versitile lens for you is what Luke is saying.
Good luck with your decsion and let us know how it turns out.