For anyone debating the 300 f/4 IS vs 100-300 f/4 for sports...

I liked my Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8 for my son's soccer games except for the fact I had to stand so far back from the field to catch them little buggers coming the end I was standing at. I just use sports shooying mode on my 40D. All the parents loved me too

Supersteve911 wrote in post #10970973
I liked my Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8 for my son's soccer games except for the fact I had to stand so far back from the field to catch them little buggers coming the end I was standing at. I just use sports shooying mode on my 40D. All the parents loved me too

Get out of the "modes" .

To O/P, what ISO are you shooting at? When I went to the 7D a big part of it was the capabilty to shoot at the higher ranges and still get useable shots. I usually lock ( AV mode )my 70-200 2.8 IS at F4 and use enough ISO to keep me well above 1/1000 and that is the secret. The higher shutter speeds will give you better shots. You can always remove what little noise you end up with. I love my 7D 70-200 2.8 IS L combo. Oh, I also always now use a monopod even with the 70-200. I made up an album of great shots of every player for the coach this season an he was floored. He says he wants my kid on his team next season, he was really pleased.

Bradfordguy wrote in post #10971450
To O/P, what ISO are you shooting at? When I went to the 7D a big part of it was the capabilty to shoot at the higher ranges and still get useable shots. I usually lock ( AV mode )my 70-200 2.8 IS at F4 and use enough ISO to keep me well above 1/1000 and that is the secret. The higher shutter speeds will give you better shots. You can always remove what little noise you end up with. I love my 7D 70-200 2.8 IS L combo. Oh, I also always now use a monopod even with the 70-200. I made up an album of great shots of every player for the coach this season an he was floored. He says he wants my kid on his team next season, he was really pleased.

???

twoshadows wrote in post #10896668
Just an update: a tweak in MA to the Sigma and it is back to its old self again . Shot a game with it today and am just wowed by the photos.

Here are the ones I sent to the paper:

http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380817
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380820
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380821
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380822
http://www.pbase.com …otography/image​/128380823

Had the Sigma 100-300 and silly me I sold it and would love to have it back. But I would be afraid being a Sigma if I did buy another one I wouldn't be as lucking and get a good one.

I just sold a 70-200 thought i would give the 135 f/2 plus a TC a shot I am close enough to the action that I should be OK. Now I am thinking maybe I should have gotten the 100-300 instead LOL

2 great lenses. Nice first-hand-user write up, Ian.

Personally, I wish Canon would come out with a 300 F4 L IS II USM (with 4-5 stop IS and updated ring USM AF unit), or a 100-300 F4 L IS USM.

LightRules wrote in post #10972925
2 great lenses. Nice first-hand-user write up, Ian.

Personally, I wish Canon would come out with a 300 F4 L IS II USM (with 4-5 stop IS and updated ring USM AF unit), or a 100-300 F4 L IS USM.

In spite of everything, I love my 300 f/4 IS and find it to be my most versatile lens. I doubt I'd be interested in an upgrade, but I could see the attraction to such a lens. Now, if Canon came out with a 100-300 f/4L IS USM... .

Thanks for the good words, LR.

twoshadows wrote in post #10973747
In spite of everything, I love my 300 f/4 IS and find it to be my most versatile lens. I doubt I'd be interested in an upgrade, but I could see the attraction to such a lens. Now, if Canon came out with a 100-300 f/4L IS USM... .

Thanks for the good words, LR.

Probably 5-10 of my 30 posts have been about any one of these three lenses. I would love any one of them.

LightRules wrote in post #10972925
2 great lenses. Nice first-hand-user write up, Ian.

Personally, I wish Canon would come out with a 300 F4 L IS II USM (with 4-5 stop IS and updated ring USM AF unit), or a 100-300 F4 L IS USM.

The 'Skins will win the Super Bowl before this happens !

LightRules wrote in post #10972925
2 great lenses. Nice first-hand-user write up, Ian.

Personally, I wish Canon would come out with a 300 F4 L IS II USM (with 4-5 stop IS and updated ring USM AF unit), or a 100-300 F4 L IS USM.

If Canon came out with a 100-300 f/4 IS USM I would be all over it. That would be a great outdoor sports lens. Comparatively light and cheap, with the extra reach you need for most field sports.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10974012
The 'Skins will win the Super Bowl before this happens !

Well then Canon better get a move on it...cuz this is the year!

My 300mm f/4 was my favourite soccer lens by far. When I shoot with the 70-200mm + 1.4x TC, yes I can zoom out, but honestly, most "zoomed out" shots look bad to me. I'm just so used to the compressed background, that the "wide" shots just aren't that pleasing to me anymore. But of course, that's just me.

I did sell my 300mm f/4 two days ago - in the middle of soccer season... So this weekend it's 70-200mm + TC time again. By next week, I should have my 300mm f/2.8

twoshadows wrote in post #10897619
To show what I mean about the 300mm f/4 IS, here are the photos I submitted from yesterday for this morning's edition. The first and fourth show the ugly, nervous bokeh that it can sometimes produce.

Just curious:
For the shots with the "nervous bokeh", was the IS on?

BenJohnson wrote in post #10898804
I'd be interested in seeing a more controlled comparison of the bokeh between the two.

Ben,

I haven't had an opportunity to do a controlled test of the bokeh between these two lenses, but I have been shooting in sunshine at the same field with the Sigma 3x the last week and I have yet to find the nervous bokeh of the Canon 300 f/4 IS - at least nothing has stood out to me the way the Canon's shots sometimes do. And PF is non-existent with the Sigma, even when the shot is slightly over exposed. All-in-all, impressive for a zoom compared to a prime .

-Ian

int2str wrote in post #10974592
Just curious:
For the shots with the "nervous bokeh", was the IS on?

I think so, yeah...