should I buy 300mm 2.8l or ?

should I buy 300mm 2.8l or buy a teleconverter for my 70-200 2.8L m2 (canon 7d)
for local sports outdoor daytime...


thanks in advance

$4200 vs $300

If you can afford it, I'd say why not?

But if you're adding 1.4 to the 70-200, might as well consider the 300 f4 IS...save you alot of $$$

300 2.8

4x4rock wrote in post #10665007
$4200 vs $300

If you can afford it, I'd say why not?

But if you're adding 1.4 to the 70-200, might as well consider the 300 f4 IS...save you alot of $$$

that's great advice, i'm gonna check that out!

For outdoor sports .. I love 300L2.8 .. unfortunately it's a bit slow for indoor sport .. but zoom is not much better for indoor

Last week end I was testing, for next World Quad Bike race end of august, in France .. I just tested it on a 50D .. Usually I use a 5D MKII
Just some samples ..

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …081/955541368_n​rG9e-O.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …033/955540743_J​7dNG-O.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …844/955544864_A​CiRS-O.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …56/955542024_eq​BHd-XL.jpg

300 2.8, again

300 2.8 or the 300 f/4 for budget.....never liked the 1.4 on my 70-200. Works great on the 300 and 400 though

Used my 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 extender for soccer for a year before getting the 300 2.8. If you can afford it, get the 300- you will be amazed at how much better your images will be.

A $300 1.4X is the cheapest way to go, and usable on 70-200/2.8 with a little bit of IQ degradation.

For handheld shooting, 300/4 IS works well. Figure $1000.

300/2.8 IS is the best IQ of all and a superb lens, but $4200. It's also predominantly a tripod or monopod lens.... so add that to your budget if you don't already have one or the other (and don't go cheap here.... it needs to safely and securely support the big lens). A sturdy carbon fiber tripod with a gimbal head probably adds another $1000 to $1500. A good solid monopod will run $200+.

Of the various options... The 300/2.8 is by far the one most likely to make you shout "Holy #$(&$... Damn I'm good!" and make your eyes bleed when viewing your images during post processing

The only downside to using any 300mm+ is that you will be shooting more distant subjects, and thus through more atmosphere. The dust in a couple of the above examples shows what you'll be dealing with. It can be made to work, or might get in the way, depending upon what effect you're going for. I had the same situation with early morning fog at an event last weekend. Pretty much left the 300mm on the sidelines until the fog burned off later in the morning.

I agree.... 1.4X does work very well with 300/2.8... a little less so with 300/4.

not sure I agree with all of that... you will find many people who can and do handhold the 300. Its heavy and I dont handhold it much but its possible and done. Also any decent monop will work and most of the pros use a sub $100 manfrotto ...adding a head is not necessary and not needed. Tripod is a different story but for sports that is rarley used. JMO

All you need is $50 bogen entry level monopod. It can easily handle 400mm f2.8 or the 600mm f4. 300mm f2.8 IS is nothing. Not sure why some folks are hell bent on spending big bucks on monopods. Unlike tripods you don't save much if any weight by buying fancy CF gitzo. Now if you don't want to screw your lens directly to the monopod then you will end of spending more money (more than the cost of the monopod) if you go with nice systems like arca-swiss compatible plates etc.

For tripods, I am all for Gitzo CF ones.

I used a Bogen 676B Digital, $30, on my 300 f2.8 IS and a friend's 500 f4 IS with no issue at all. It's really light too.

Spending $200 for a monopod is a bit too much IMHO

I handhold the 2.8 --a monopod slows down your response time too much IMHO.

Not shooting under the lights--take a serious look at the 300 f4.0.

Absolute bargain for the price--an excellent value for what it does.

I handhold the 2.8 all the time. When I get tired I just hang it on the cotton carrier. Looks goofy but no strain on neck at all.

I normally use a monopod (679b)because the lens weighs 6#...at least the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 did. I have only had the 300 2.8 for a week and no prolonged hand holding. I can do it but not for the length of a football game or baseball game. I agree the monopod is restricting somewhat but I have gotten used to it. Now, the foot zoom will be a different animal to tame!

Recently I shot a softball tournament (12 games, hand held) using the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4x TC. Lots of keepers so I am happy with it. The Siggy was en-route to it's new owner and I hadn't got the 300 yet.

Here is an example cropped for composition. I was at the first base dugout area and the play was at third.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.