New Lens 300 f4 / 400 5.6

I shoot lacrosse and football. Most football is at night and just don't think my 1 d marklll on the 400 5.6 will get it. If I just use what i have with crop factor I'm shooting about 364........Does anyone use either of these lens on a 1d Mark lll ? How doe you like it? 4k for 300 2.8 is just too rich. Thanks

I use a 300f4 for night high school football with my 1DmII. Works great with flash, too dark without flash. The 400 is even darker so I would not even try it, I am certain there are other opinions but for me that lens is too dark and slow focusing in low light. The 400 is great for air shows, daytime sports, birds, surfing...and much sharper than a 100-400 at the 400mm end

Thanks that what i was thinking. Night time football does not allow flash or i should say they frown on it. Thanks for your input.

I think you might find that even f/4.0 will not be enough for nighttime football. I used to shoot high school football, and only once did I get adequate shots using a 70-200 f/2.8. Maybe rent one first to see how it will do, no sense investing the cash if it doesn't work.

I used to own the 1d3 and have since moved to a 5d3 (which does considerably better at high ISO), and even now I don't think I'd particularly want to shoot night football at anything less than f2.8, unless you were using flash.

A lens that you may want to look at is the Sigma 120-300. It often gets a lot of hate, but I have the old non-os verison and it did remarkably well on the 1d mk iii. You can find the non-os versions for about $1200 or the newer ones for about $2500 used. Servo tracking at night is 'just ok' compared to the Canon 300 2.8, but all in all I've never had trouble bringing home great images. The new OS version is supposedly much better.

Here's a link to a flickr set from this past year. Pretty much anything outdoors was shot with the Sigma 120-300.
http://www.flickr.com …2/sets/72157632​803658322/

J.David wrote in post #15623727
I shoot lacrosse and football. Most football is at night and just don't think my 1 d marklll on the 400 5.6 will get it. If I just use what i have with crop factor I'm shooting about 364........Does anyone use either of these lens on a 1d Mark lll ? How doe you like it? 4k for 300 2.8 is just too rich. Thanks

If it was me, I'd just purchase a 1.4 for the 70-200...a lot cheaper then buying a 300 f/4.

But to your actual question, as other have already stated, you'll need fast glass for most HS FB fields if you're not shooting flash.

D. Warren i have a 1.4 and that is my conclusion that untill I get the coin for a 2.8 I have about as much reach as I can get. thanks

Strouty: I'll check out the 120-300 thanks

Strouty wrote in post #15628455
I used to own the 1d3 and have since moved to a 5d3 (which does considerably better at high ISO), and even now I don't think I'd particularly want to shoot night football at anything less than f2.8, unless you were using flash.

A lens that you may want to look at is the Sigma 120-300. It often gets a lot of hate, but I have the old non-os verison and it did remarkably well on the 1d mk iii. You can find the non-os versions for about $1200 or the newer ones for about $2500 used. Servo tracking at night is 'just ok' compared to the Canon 300 2.8, but all in all I've never had trouble bringing home great images. The new OS version is supposedly much better.

Here's a link to a flickr set from this past year. Pretty much anything outdoors was shot with the Sigma 120-300.
http://www.flickr.com …2/sets/72157632​803658322/

Thanks nice stuff. I saw some were shot on a 7d. Do you miss the 1Dmarkiii3? I love mine.
Will be shooting jv and varsity lacrosse jv daylight, varsity in the worst light around aNd will most like likely take the 1.4 off at night and go 70-200 2.8, put my 28 or 50 1.4 on my 40d around the goal......thanks for posting.

I loved my 1d3. I played around with the 7d for a while but much prefered the 1d3. It was actually a litle paintful at first going to the 5d3, since it never felt quite right in my hands (even with a grip) compared to a 1d series. I'm budgeting for a 400 2.8 IS for the spring, so I'm thinking I'll pick up another 1d3 to add as a second body for a 70-200.

The 120-300 siggy will work for you. It pretty much is as Strouty stated. I owned one for one season. As he stated the AF is not up to a L lens so I sold it...the keeper rate for me was not acceptable...but there really is no better FL then 120-300 IMOH...wish Canon would develop one. And given the price difference it would probably be worth it to you.

Strouty hit it, get a 5Diii or 1Div and bump the ISO into the 10,000 range. You will still have crappy light in the end zones and looking back into the bench. even a 2.8 lens will not put light where there is none.