Super Tele Choice

I'm about to replace my non i.s. 300 f2.8 after eleven years of faultless use. The thing is, with what?
Like all sports 'togs, I would Imagine, my first choice is to write a cheque for a 400mm f2.8 and never look back. The Yorkshireman in me says "nay lad, get thesen a 200 f2 and a 300 2.8 (both used) for the same brass"
If im honest, I don't need the reach, but i do "need" a 400mm.
Obviously a first world problem, but it's currently getting on the wifes nerves as I seem unable to make a decision.
Any thoughts guys?

As a huge fan of zoom lenses, I vote for the EF 100-400 mkII

It seems you shoot football/rugby from the sidelines so I would imagine the zoom being well suited given the highly variable shooting distance.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18754889
I'm about to replace my non i.s. 300 f2.8 after eleven years of faultless use. The thing is, with what?
Like all sports 'togs, I would Imagine, my first choice is to write a cheque for a 400mm f2.8 and never look back. The Yorkshireman in me says "nay lad, get thesen a 200 f2 and a 300 2.8 (both used) for the same brass"
If im honest, I don't need the reach, but i do "need" a 400mm.
Obviously a first world problem, but it's currently getting on the wifes nerves as I seem unable to make a decision.
Any thoughts guys?

By ‘eck lad thas in a reet dilemma ‘int tha. Best thing tha can do is trade your lass in. Then wi’ money tha gets for ‘er tha can buy both o’ t’lens that tha wants.

400 f/2.8 II... used prices are dropping like a rock since the announcement of the new IIIs and the EOS R.

Thanks guys, both valid suggestions
Given her skill set John, not sure of the market for the wife, sure spetznast will find a use for her tho.
Matt, spoken like a true sports shooter, but i still recoil at the prices being charged.
I've always lusted after the 200 f2 and thought of one paired with a 300 for field sports is like a siren call.
What i actually need is all three.
Aw crap

keep your 300 F/2.8 for when you need fast glass for poor light

I would look into the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Its the best at 600mm for the $$ and very hard to beat this lens on a good sensor and body with a great AF.

All the super tele's are F/4. The sigma is 1 stop more and on a clean sensor its a Mute point

I am more than impressed with the Sigma 150-600 sport. Great glass. It also handles a 1.4 TC very well

I like your thinking re 600mm reach, but the sigma is just too slow at f5.6/6.3
By super tele, i meant the f2.8 variants of the 300 and 400 lenses and the f2 200.
I generally try and stop down to f5.6 and open up to f2.8 as the light goes and the siggy wouldn't give me that option.
I did think about the 200-400 f4, but again its a little slow and hideously expensive.
It's ridiculous that i now view the 200L and 300L as "bargains" at under £7k for the pair second hand

I've dreamed about the 400m F/2.8 for a long time (have the 400mm F/5.6). I have since changed my mind. If I had the $$$$ for the F/2.8 I would instead purchase the 200-400mm F/4 w/ 1.4x . Gives you everything you need in 1 lens. Canon lent it to me for the final round of the 2016 US Open & I've dreamt about it ever since.

What's your 300 F2.8L not doing?

You could go for more reach with a 400mm, or you could simply get a 5DSR and eliminate that issue while keeping a wider FOV for ease of composition and tracking.

If you get a 600, you'll want a 70-200 or similar side kick when you can't frame up on what you want.

I would want the 300 F2.8L for sports, regardless of anything. It's simply the most versatile lens possible in this F2.8 range. 600mm and still sharp and fast with a single TC. Close minimum focus distance. Sharp as all get out. Fast to focus. What's not to like about it?

I'd probably want the 300 over a 400 frankly, unless you're always struggling with reach. Even then, 100mm doesn't make a massive difference. And today's sensor tech is going up and up, so I'd stay 300 and just play around with camera options.

Very best,

Mal, my 300 is currently not taking 2x converter without looking like an out of register newspaper pic, but seems to work with my 1.4x ok. It's a given that the newer versions are sharper too, so that would be a plus.
I've just traded up to a 1d mkIV from III as i prefer the files to newer crop cameras and a 1dx is a no go (price) as would be a 5ds (great sensor, not enough fps).
I think it boils down to bang for buck and i see two lenses (200 and 300) as a better option than the 400.
Thanks for the reply tho

Pigpen, I've thought about the 200-400 but again its too big a stretch at the current price, either new or used unfortunately.

I understand completely. Little out of my reach also. I've never even owned a car costing that much. If I bought that lens, I'd be sleeping with it because my wife would leave me.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18754897
As a huge fan of zoom lenses, I vote for the EF 100-400 mkII

It seems you shoot football/rugby from the sidelines so I would imagine the zoom being well suited given the highly variable shooting distance.

Couldn't agree more. This is one hell of a piece of work. Never once wanted for a wider aperture.

umphotography wrote in post #18755109
keep your 300 F/2.8 for when you need fast glass for poor light

All the super tele's are F/4. The sigma is 1 stop more and on a clean sensor its a Mute point

mute
/myo͞ot/
adjective
adjective: mute

1.
refraining from speech or temporarily speechless.

moot
/mo͞ot/
adjective
adjective: moot

1.
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.

.........just sayin'.....

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18755550
Mal, my 300 is currently not taking 2x converter without looking like an out of register newspaper pic, but seems to work with my 1.4x ok. It's a given that the newer versions are sharper too, so that would be a plus.
I've just traded up to a 1d mkIV from III as i prefer the files to newer crop cameras and a 1dx is a no go (price) as would be a 5ds (great sensor, not enough fps).
I think it boils down to bang for buck and i see two lenses (200 and 300) as a better option than the 400.
Thanks for the reply tho

I understand where you are coming from, I would suggest first trying to get your hands on the 2x Canon MKIII, it is very good. But make sure it will mate with your lens now, because its design is such that it is pretty picky about which lenses can mount to it.

I would love a fast long prime. Right now I have to use the Sigma 600mm with a 1.4x Kenko. Fortunately the M50 will AF with the 1.4x or 2x on this lens (or my 100-400II).

ISO 5000 with the 1.4x and Sigma works well enough for me, a bit of noise, but detail is pretty good. This crop/TC/slow long lens combo will have to work for me for now. Too many other things that are vying for my funds right now.

I know a few guys that shoot the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 for sports. Two of them say it's fantastic, the third claims it to be a bit soft but puts up with it for the versatility.