300mm for Sports

I have started shooting a lot more sports (typically Baseball, Lacrosse, some Track & Field) at the high school and college levels this season. So far I am using my 70-200 II + 1D Mark IV combination with typically Sigma 85mm f/1.4 on my 6D as a second option if the action comes close.
However, I have found myself in some situations where I feel like I need more reach. Any of the 300 f/2.8L options would be what I eventually want to get but is not in the cards for now.

My current options are:
Old 300mm f/4L non-IS (~$450 used)
1.4II or 1.4III + 70-200 II ($200-400)
300 f/4L IS (~$800 used)

If I bought one of the primes I would probably throw that on the Mark IV and keep the 70-200 on the 6D. Any opinions on these options? I demo-ed the 1.4III extender with the 70-200 II and while it was okay I didn't love the IQ hit that things took.

Heya,

I look at it like this, if you cannot afford the glass you need for reach, then consider a different camera. As much as the 1DIV is great, maybe something as simple as a 50D or 60D or 7D would give you want you want for cheap (sub-$500), putting more pixels on target with your current 200mm. I know it seems weird going from a 1DIV to such a lesser series of cameras, but often times, if it gets you the frame up you want, for significantly less than buying super telephotos ($6k, etc) then it's an option.

Then there's also the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS. $2k. You get 300 F2.8, but you can throw on a TC for a longer F4 too. Or go 600mm with a 2.0x TC. Very versatile lens for this kind of stuff.

Does that Sigma F1.4 really focus fast enough for you on the 6D for sports?

The old 300 F4 doesn't do great with TC's.

The 70-200 II that you have with a TC makes a 300 F4 of any flavor less of something I'd spend as much on since the TC is cheaper and gives you basically the same thing.

And then I go back to thinking about 200 F2.8 on APS-C instead, to get the pixels on target without the high priced glass.

Very best,

I would have to disagree with MalVeaux's suggestion of the 50D - simply because it gave me less reach than my 1D4, as well as poor AF and very limited (useful) ISO range - sorry Mal.

I am not a sports photographer but I do know quite a few and they all have (or aspire to) a 70-200 F2.8 and a 300 F2.8, either Nikon or Canon, with the most responsive body that they can afford. Note, around here, sports photography means Rugby and the light is often terrible!

You are off to a very good start with your 1D4 and 70-200 Mk2 - neither of those will need replacing for quite a while. Whilst the Canon 300 F2.8 IS lenses are superb (probably why I bought one!) they are very expensive! Before my 300 F2.8 I used the Canon 300 F4 L IS and was very impressed with it. You will loose 1 stop and not be able to isolate your subject quite as well but my copy was very sharp and tracked very well. Note I do not use IS for moving subjects, actually I rarely use it for anything, as the AF locks faster and tracks better without it.

That combination of 70-200 II and 1.4 III extender should be very sharp. You shouldn't lose much in IQ according to most people who use that combination. The 2.0 III is a different story. You will lose some IQ with it, along with the two stops of light.

The combination you have in mind is a good one, I think, with the 70-200 on the 6D and 300mm on the 1d4. I wasn't sure if the 300 would be long enough and went back to double-check the sports you're shooting. Baseball might be a little tricky, with an outfielder catching that deep fly ball. I shoot mostly soccer on a full-size field, and I found the 300 wasn't long enough and went to the 400. Of course, then you're talking crazy money for that lens.

The EF 300/4 IS works very well for sports. It also works very well with a 1.4X (I use the Canon Mk II).... There's almost no hit to image quality and no perceptible difference in AF speed/performance with the 1.4X. It's also quite hand-holdable. Not much larger or heavier than a 70-200/2.8.

300/2.8 and 120-300/2.8 are wonderful, but you'll want to use a tripod - or at least a monopod - most of the time.

Incidentally the EF 300/4 IS is the closest focusing of all the Canon lenses longer than 200mm. It can be useful as a near macro lens, too. Gets to about 1/4 life size on it's own, while most of the others don't give more than 1/5.

And, the IS comes is helpful. I leave it ON practically all the time on this and the other 5 or 6 IS lenses that I've been using for close to 15 years now. It does not slow down AF... IMO if anything IS helps AF work faster and track better. That would just make sense, that the camera would have an easier time locking onto and maintaining lock on a stabilized image. (Note: There is some evidence that Nikon VR slightly slows AF on Nikkor lenses, I don't know why. But I don't see that happening with Canon IS and that's what we're discussing here). The 300/4 is one of the few lenses where IS needs to be turned off when the lens is solidly locked down on a tripod, no chance of movement at all, otherwise the IS can go into sort of a feedback loop where the IS actually causes movement when there's none to correct. But even if using it on a monopod or a gimbal mount, I leave IS on. And in almost all instances, Canon IS lenses are sharper than earlier or concurrent non-IS versions that might exist. This includes the 300/4.

Also, 50D is quite capable of sports shooting. I agree with the suggestion that a 1.6X crop camera can be an inexpensive way to "get more reach". Anyone who suggests otherwise simply hasn't used a 50D very much. Sure, a 1D series camera or a 7D is more capable and ideal for action shooting, with their more sophisticated AF systems and discrete chip to drive those systems. But, the 50D certainly would be better at sports shooting than a 6D. That's for certain.