Canon 300mm f/4 L IS USM with TC Vs 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 L USM IS

Bundybear · 13-05-2007, 23:35

Guys and Gals,

Bit of a dilemma.....wanting to purchase longer lens for some sports. Mostly Rugby League and some motor sports. Have read reviews/comments re these two lens.....but cant decide. Originally I was leaning towards the 100-400mm, till I read Rob's review on the 300mm. I am thinking with the 100-400mm I will have a bit of an overlap with the 70-210 f/2.8L. I would like to use a 1.4x TC on the 300mm. Has any lucky bugger got both or has had both to compare and what sort of stuff did you use it for and would you purchase it again?

Other equipment already purchased:
30D
10-20mm sigma
24-70mm f/2.8L Canon
70-210mm f/2.8L IS Canon.

**Dabhand16** · 13-05-2007, 23:44

If you are looking to use the 300 with a TC, have you found out if you will retain the AF function, or are you 'not bovvered'?

Personally, with regard to the overlap on the 100-400 and your 70-210, look at my face. Is it bovvered? (to help you out in this text only reply, it is not bovvered).

**stepheno** · 14-05-2007, 08:10

Cheaper still is to put a 1.4x converter on your 70-210. That will give you nearly 300mm. I have the 100-400 for sport (mainly soccer) and prefer the ability to change the zoom. A fixed 300mm wouldn't do me at all unless I had a second camera....and in your shoes I wouldn't worry about the overlap with a 100-400. HTH

P-E · 14-05-2007, 08:51

I was only looking at this lens myself yesterday

So be interested to see the replies in here but I agree with stepheno in that the prime would have to be on a second body for me.

ChrisRabior · 15-05-2007, 17:32

I would get the 100-400, purely out of the zoom capability. I hate being limited by primes, and the extra reach would be a fine addition to my kit.

Now, as you have the 70-210 f/2.8, a 1.4 TC will essentially become 98-294mm f/4. A 2x TC will push you to 140-420 f/5.6. I guess it depends more on what you want. The 100-400 will probably give you better results than your 70-210 with a 2x TC, and be a bit more flexible with aperture.

The 100-400 definitely gets my vote.

Whipspeed · 15-05-2007, 23:24

For rugby, the 100-400, it's a cracking lens & overlaping with the 70-200 as dabhand says, am I bovvered

It's a great lens.

gsgary · 21-05-2007, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whipspeed

For rugby, the 100-400, it's a cracking lens & overlaping with the 70-200 as dabhand says, am I bovvered

It's a great lens.

Sorry don't agree the 300F4 blows the 100-400 out of the water for Rugby i have used my friends before he got rid, most rugby league start at 3.00pm the second half F5.6 will not cut it, I sold my 300F4 2 months ago for £380 wish i had kept it even though i bought the 300F2.8

30oF4 non is Doncaster V Widnes

300F4 + 1.4x Cricket

**Dabhand16** · 21-05-2007, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsgary

Sorry don't agree the 300F4 blows the 100-400 out of the water for Rugby i have used my friends before he got rid, most rugby league start at 3.00pm the second half F5.6 will not cut it

Good point there Gary - I can't deny that i would not have even thought about this, but then again, I don't shoot this sort of stuff. I guess it is the sort of thing that only expreience would make you aware of.

gsgary · 21-05-2007, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

Good point there Gary - I can't deny that i would not have even thought about this, but then again, I don't shoot this sort of stuff. I guess it is the sort of thing that only expreience would make you aware of.

At the Sheffield Eagles i am at iso3200 F2.8 1/640 in the second half

**stepheno** · 22-05-2007, 09:06

Gary, I see from your exif that you used the 300mm f2.8 in the last shot? That is not a fair comparison with the 300mm f4 since one costs £3,000 and the other costs £870. I agree that it probably is true that a prime will beat a zoom at the prime's focal length but you will pay a lot more. As I have said it depends on the individual's preference. In my case I prefer the flexibility of the zoom and will stand the slight loss in IQ.

gsgary · 22-05-2007, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by stepheno

Gary, I see from your exif that you used the 300mm f2.8 in the last shot? That is not a fair comparison with the 300mm f4 since one costs £3,000 and the other costs £870. I agree that it probably is true that a prime will beat a zoom at the prime's focal length but you will pay a lot more. As I have said it depends on the individual's preference. In my case I prefer the flexibility of the zoom and will stand the slight loss in IQ.

No 200mm, first half i used the 300F4 but then it got too dark, it is just to show you need a fast lens to shoot rugby league in the second half
F5.6 will not cut it, i would always go for the fastest lens i could afford

**stepheno** · 22-05-2007, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsgary

No 200mm, first half i used the 300F4 but then it got too dark, it is just to show you need a fast lens to shoot rugby league in the second half
F5.6 will not cut it, i would always go for the fastest lens i could afford

Understood

and I agree about the fastest lens you can afford. If I could afford to I would have both