300mm or 400 mm?

what would be the better option for airshow, highschool sports, birds, wildlife, etc? im going from a 50d to a 1dmarkII so im concerned about not having the ability to crop as much as i can now. any opinions on these lenses? specifically the 400 5.6 and the 300 f4. it will be used in full daylight as i have a 70-200 2.8 for lower light situations.

For birds and field sports (soccer/football and American football) I don't find 300mm is enough on the 1DII. I love the 100-400L as I can zoom out to 100mm when the action is close. 400mm isn't even enough for some birds so I use it with the 1.4x which the 1D can still autofocus well at f/8. For indoors obviously the 70-200 f/2.8 will be better but outdoors with the 1DII get 400mm for sure.

You could also consider a Sigma 50-500 OS...

Even more range than the 100-400 and its just as good [possibly a hair better] in terms of sharpness

For the last three years I have been using a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It has produce many, many good photos. I have used it with a 20D, 30D, 40D, 1D MK3 and a 7D. i use it for all sorts of sports day or night. A monopod is required because it weighs 6 pounds by itself.

Example Gallery. The photos in this gallery with the file name starting with "MTH" were shot with the Siggy and a 1D MK3.

KenjiS wrote in post #10517976
You could also consider a Sigma 50-500 OS...

Even more range than the 100-400 and its just as good [possibly a hair better] in terms of sharpness

I know this is something I'll be looking at myself at some point .

Ken , how does the Sigma 50-500 compare to the 150-500 ??

+1 on bigma!

nitehawk55 wrote in post #10518092
I know this is something I'll be looking at myself at some point .

Ken , how does the Sigma 50-500 compare to the 150-500 ??

The 150-500 is more consumer-level than the 50-500 OS, the 50-500 OS replaced the old pro-grade 50-500 (No OS) and so far everything I've seen (except Juza's review but im 100% certain he got a crap copy..which is sad because the guy loves his Sigma glass...) have been well..stellar...

Basically, it gives you the quality of the 100-400 with an extra bit of reach on the long end and a better OS system, the only downside is the typical Sigma AF problems some users are having..and the fact its a hair heavier than the 100-400...

But if it was my money, right now, and i needed this lens, I'd dump my cash on the 50-500 OS and NOT the 100-400...In fact I've seriously almost dumped the 100-400 and picked up a 50-500 OS on a few occasions now...

The 50-500 also has a neat trick...at 200mm it has a GREAT maximum magnification of 1:3...Which makes it a psuedo-macro for some things like larger flowers, Giving it even more purpose as a 1-lens-do-all-hiking solution!

If you can live with slightly worse optical performance and a slightly more love-it-or-hate-it reputation, the 150-500 is a good choice, its substantially cheaper than a 100-400 or the new 50-500...But if i was shelling the dough out myself, id buy a 50-500 OS period

so,were there any improvements to the lens other than OS? would a previous model 50-500 be a good option if OS isnt needed/desired?

KenjiS wrote in post #10518304
The 150-500 is more consumer-level than the 50-500 OS, the 50-500 OS replaced the old pro-grade 50-500 (No OS) and so far everything I've seen (except Juza's review but im 100% certain he got a crap copy..which is sad because the guy loves his Sigma glass...) have been well..stellar...

Basically, it gives you the quality of the 100-400 with an extra bit of reach on the long end and a better OS system, the only downside is the typical Sigma AF problems some users are having..and the fact its a hair heavier than the 100-400...

But if it was my money, right now, and i needed this lens, I'd dump my cash on the 50-500 OS and NOT the 100-400...In fact I've seriously almost dumped the 100-400 and picked up a 50-500 OS on a few occasions now...

The 50-500 also has a neat trick...at 200mm it has a GREAT maximum magnification of 1:3...Which makes it a psuedo-macro for some things like larger flowers, Giving it even more purpose as a 1-lens-do-all-hiking solution!

If you can live with slightly worse optical performance and a slightly more love-it-or-hate-it reputation, the 150-500 is a good choice, its substantially cheaper than a 100-400 or the new 50-500...But if i was shelling the dough out myself, id buy a 50-500 OS period

Thanks for your thoughts on those Ken !

I think the 300mm will be more useful. If you want more range slap on a 1.4x.Sometimes I already think my 300 is too long unless it's field sports. I use my 70-200 mostly.

markmm wrote in post #10518493
so,were there any improvements to the lens other than OS? would a previous model 50-500 be a good option if OS isnt needed/desired?

The old 50-500, given you can find them for dirt cheap these days (I've seen good examples trade for $500-600) was a fantastic, superb, utterly amazing piece of glass...It rivaled the 100-400 in sharpness too...in fact its only bad point was the lack of OS

Basically the new 50-500 is everything the old one was, that is a sharp amazing lens, coupled with some nice new things it wasnt, like the psuedo-macro mode and the fact it has Sigma's fairly good 4-stop OS

if you dont need OS, the old Bigma is a great stalwart of a lens...And probubly one of the best wildlife lenses on a budget

If you shoot under good light and need that extra reach go for 400mm else if reach is not an issue and 300mm is OK 300mm f/4 is better choice