400mm f2.8 v 300mm

I'm going to be doing some regular football (soccer) coverage for my local semi-pro side and am toying with buying the 400mm f2.8 but am wondering if it's a bit OTT regarding reach or would the 300mm suffice?...can you ever have 'too much reach'? ...do any of you footy togs have an opinion you could share with me?

Is it worth splashing out that bit extra for the 400mm or will I still get enough reach with the 300mm to 'chase the game' or will I still be waiting of rthe game to come to me?...I currently use a 70-200mm which is ok in my quarter but I want more!!

thanks

Day or night games? Is the price dif. a major factor for you?

The 300 and 1.4 are great together...

But, the 400 paired with your 70-200 would be a great way to cover the game

thanks Matt...mostly afternoon games (probably 1 a year with the sun out!) and some evening matches under floodlights.

Pricing could be an issue but let's go for the ideal scenario of money no object (longer loan repayment!)

If the 300mm can do a great job then I will lean towards that as it will be cheaper...As an alternative I suppose I could consider a Sigma but Canon EF's would be first choice.

What camera(s) are you using? I like the 400 on a full-frame camera paired with the 70-200 on a 1.3x crop camera.

Canon 40D

With the 300 and the 400 you are going to have a dead zone where the action is too close to shoot or you end up cutting off arm and legs. You can shoot farther out with the 400 but that dead zone is also greater than with the 300.

At one time I was using a 70-200 and a 300 on a single camera swapping out the lenses when I wanted to cover a certain portion of the field. I also made good use of a 1.4x extender for day games.

If I were using one body today my preference would still be for swapping the 70-200 and 300. I would have to use two bodies to effectively use the 70-200 and 400 lenses.

I hope that made sense.

many thanks...just been reading reviews of the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS ...it looks sweeeeeeet!!.... I think I just made my mind up!

The 300mm f/2.8L IS makes one sweet 420mm f/4L IS lens with the 1.4x TC.

Perhaps "Palladium" can shed some further insight - I know he shoots 'ball with the 300/400.

I've owned both and I recently sold the 300/2.8 because it just wasn't getting used any more since I've owned the 400/2.8. The 400 is THE lens for professional sports or any level of field sports. I even shoot youth baseball, softball, soccer and even t-ball with it. You can put a 1.4 on the 300 and be at 420 but trust me, it's not the same.

^ I would have to agree, Chris. I think for the OP's application the 400mm f/2.8L IS probably makes more sense. Especially football (soccer) as the field is huge.

My $0.02..

The only problem I can see with a fixed focus is that you're going to be very limited in where you can shoot. Unless you concentrate on a particular point in the field and setup your stance accordingly you're going to be having a lot of cropping or not be able to grab the action at all. You can also setup WAY back and get the field but than what's the point of having the 300/400mm?

The 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x might be better choice. It'll also give you a sharp 300mm focus.

Remember with the 40D you have a crop of 1.6x too so that adds to the 400mm's limited range.

P.S. I'm not saying don't get the lens, but rather it may not fit your criteria for this event.