Torn between two lenses! The Brick vs. 300 f/4L

I have saved up enough money to buy one of these lenses, it's come down to either the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L vs. the 300 f/4L. I have a 40D btw...These are two completely different lenses and i dont know what i want to go with. I shoot mostly sports and would like to get one before next semester when i am working for my collegiate newspaper.

Reasons for The Brick:
Sick of kit lens
It's regarded as one of if not the best canon lens
it's fast and i will be covering alot of events with horrible lighting (bball, boxing, concerts, presentations, volleyball)
Fast focus is what i need for quick pace action
IQ

Reasons for 300 f/4L:
I have a 70-200 f/4L and always find myself wanting more length
I will be covering just about every baseball game and in past semesters the 70-200 was just not long enough for me to get good action around the diamond.
Always wanted a big prime lens.
Also shoot alot of motorsports and this lens would be great for that.
IQ, fast focus
My ultimate goal in photography is to eventually become a pro sports photog (ya i know, good luck) and this lens might help me more than the brick get there?


I've read countless reviews on both lenses and theres still not a clear cut favorite. I know it ultimately comes down to my preference but right now i dont have one...So im asking for anyones opinion who might have some input for me!

300 F4 IS L just for the fact you mostly shoot sports. Have fun with it! Ive shot with it and it is one of the sharpest lenses ive used.

If you get the 24-70 you will just wish you had waited. I would get a 85mm 1.8 to cover boxing bball ect... The 24-70 isnt going to be fast enough. 2.8 is not fast enough on your 40D.

My suggestions...Canon or Sigma 28/30mm, Canon 85mm 1.8(great lens), 70-200 + 300mm OR 70-300 IS L IMO for sports.

You also cant forget that the Canon 70-300 IS L is going to be coming out soon as well(its also water sealed). So that could possible replace your 70-200 F4 and give you the 300mm you need.

But if you need the F4 at 300mm then the L will treat you well.

Both good lenses BUT ... Why not push the boat out and go for the 70 - 200 f2.8 and use it for both? You can always have the extender if 200 isn't enough. F 2.8 is always worth having.

There are many affordable options to upgrade on the wider end for APS-C I would say go for the reach. It sounds like that what you really want. Use the kit lens for now, at least you have something there where you have nothing at 300mm. maybe an extender too?

Why not sell the 70-200 f4 and get a sigma 100-300 f4. It's just as sharp with fast AF.

Your gonna find that 2.8 isn't fast enough for most indoor sports(especially with the 40d high ISO). I'd skip the 24-70 and get the 135L and 85 1.8

Drozz119 wrote in post #11224418
Why not sell the 70-200 f4 and get a sigma 100-300 f4. It's just as sharp with fast AF.

Your gonna find that 2.8 isn't fast enough for most indoor sports(especially with the 40d high ISO). I'd skip the 24-70 and get the 135L and 85 1.8

Yes if you're shooting day, early evening , baseball games , the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is the way to go .

It's like asking an artist "would you prefer the fine brush or the thick brush?" The artist responds, "What would you like me to paint? Landscapes or portraiture?"

I love the brick, but it has limited usefulness. It's not very long and often too slow. You'd do better with the 300 and a 50 or 85 prime OR FLASH.

CountryBoy wrote in post #11224464
Yes if you're shooting day, early evening , baseball games , the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is the way to go .

I agree. The siggy is very nice.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L beats the hell out of the 300mm f/4L IS lens just as the 300mm beats the hell out of the 24-70L at 300mm.

It just amounts to which focal length/range you need the most.

Pros for the 24-70L - It is a professional lens and gives better results than the kit lens.

Pros for the 300mm - You need a longer lens for many sports. And you already have the most shorter focal lengths covered with your kit lens despite the slow f/stop at 55mm.

Generally, I recommend that an aspiring professional equip him or herself with the very best mid-range zoom with an f/2.8 aperture that can be afforded and flesh out her/his lens battery after the aquisition of that mid-range zoom.

However, your wanting/needing a longer lens for sports sort of throws another dimension into that problem.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11225482
Generally, I recommend that an aspiring professional equip him or herself with the very best mid-range zoom with an f/2.8 aperture that can be afforded and flesh out her/his lens battery after the aquisition of that mid-range zoom

Really, why? I love my 24-70 too much to let it go, but I am beginning to think it's a mistake. It seems like everything in that range can be just as well covered with flash. I think an aspiring professional like myself would be better used putting the money elsewhere and leaving the classic 24-70/70-200 to the pros.

But the 24-70 is too awesome for that to happen. I can't bear to sell it.

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11224353
300 F4 IS L just for the fact you mostly shoot sports. Have fun with it! Ive shot with it and it is one of the sharpest lenses ive used.

If you get the 24-70 you will just wish you had waited. I would get a 85mm 1.8 to cover boxing bball ect... The 24-70 isnt going to be fast enough. 2.8 is not fast enough on your 40D.

My suggestions...Canon or Sigma 28/30mm, Canon 85mm 1.8(great lens), 70-200 + 300mm OR 70-300 IS L IMO for sports.

You also cant forget that the Canon 70-300 IS L is going to be coming out soon as well(its also water sealed). So that could possible replace your 70-200 F4 and give you the 300mm you need.

But if you need the F4 at 300mm then the L will treat you well.

f/2.8 can be fast enough on a 20D at the collegiate level so long as it is a big D1 type school and the extra DOF over 1.8 helps

to the OP:
I wouldn't call the 24-70 the greatest canon lens! Certainly not bad, but it's not hard to think of ones with even better image quality. You 70-200 f/4 has better image quality, that actually is one the greatest canon zooms.


for PJ work the 70-200 2.8 is generally better than the f/4 since it is fast enough for indoor sports at an upper collegiate level (lots there use it for basketball, although the 24-70 also works on the near court if you shoot wider style) and for much of the general stuff (although sometimes you need a fast prime)


the 300 f/4 non-IS is a good buy for field sports for day and very, very early evening games: football, soccer, baseball, lax, field hockey
(and football night at really big programs, if not ideal)

exactly what sports do you expect to shoot and at what school or at least what level school (small D3, big D1, etc.)? (if it is a big D1 school that means much better lighting and much better so many other things but competition to shoot the big sports can also be fierce and potentially even nasty back-stabbing fierce if you are unlucky)


on a 40D you could use something like a tamron 17-50 2.8 for non-sports wide stuff (for wide sports shots the tamron stuff won't cut it though and you need to go canon due to AF speed), 50 1.4 for no-flash, low-light non-sports stuff, 70-200 2.8 for sports (inlcuding night field games if you can't get access to a 300 2.8 type lens) and general stuff when you need more reach, 300 f/4 non-IS for day games outdoors (you might sneak by for night football at a really major program but probably not much else). For a small D3 or minor D1 program 2.8 might struggle indoors.

I really appreciate all the responses. Was not even aware of the Sigma 100-300 and am now interested in that as well.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11225482
Generally, I recommend that an aspiring professional equip him or herself with the very best mid-range zoom with an f/2.8 aperture that can be afforded and flesh out her/his lens battery after the aquisition of that mid-range zoom.

Alot has me leaning towards the 300 but this is where the 24-70 balances it out. Since it is the best mid range zoom you can buy and i know that at some point in my future i will own one. I would not have to look to upgrade from the 24-70 and would be a lens i would have for the rest of my career. As with the 300 i would be looking to upgrade in the future to the f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, or even a 100-400L. Thats why alot of me is thinking the 24-70 might pay off more in the long run. Not sure though, still got some thinking to do!

I've also thought about buying the 24-70 now. Then once i have enough money sell my 70-200 f/4L for around $500 and pick up the Sigma 100-300...Thoughts on this? Sounding pretty good to me.

If sports is your priority, I would get a long lens (like the Canon 300mm f/4 or the Sigma 100-300mm) and a shorter fast prime like the 85mm 1.8 or the 100mm 2.0. I would also get a 1.4 extender to use with your 300mm. The 24-70mm is a nice versatile lens that you'll use in many situations, but its not a great sports lens.