# Canon super tele choices!!!



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

Hi guys, I've just created an account but I've been reading on this forum for quite some time now. It seems there aren't many posts about superteles so here I am, posting this question. 

I have recently grow an interest in sports photography in addition to what I do usually, which is landscape so I'm probably a complete noob in this area but I am stuck between a choice of lens.

First we have to exclude the new Canon super teles as they are EXPENSIVE!!! It's true, I can't afford them no matter how good they are. 

So the choices, the EF300mm f2.8 L (non-IS version), the EF300mm f2.8L IS(first version), EF400mm f2.8 II(non-IS) and the EF400mm f2.8 L IS, all second hand of course, since they are all been discontinued. And if someone could give a comparison of the first generation IS super teles to the latest one on AF and IQ that would be fantastic!

Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to...... 

Thanks for your help guys!


----------



## M.ST (Aug 13, 2012)

Go for the version II with IS of both lenses.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 13, 2012)

I've shot with the 400mm/2.8L IS USM on my 50D. I've shot SuperCross BMX handheld (ouch) and deer+motorcycle racing with a monopod and a tripod+gimbal head.
When the shots are in focus, they're brilliant! I would not blame the lens for the oof shots, but me and my 50D.

For comparisons for IQ etc, look at www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews

The lens is so heavy that while you can shoot handheld for individual shots, it does not lend itself towards mobile shots. If you can sit the same place all the time, no problem. If you need to be active and pivot to get the shots - well, think very carefully.

I would recommend looking at the 300/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC rather than the 400/2.8L IS, simply due to the weight.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to......



How about an 1.4x extender to your 200mm and a 7D body for a start? Being able to carry the lens without Major Pain sitting on your shoulders is a big benefit in the field.


----------



## Fly (Aug 13, 2012)

Hi all, 

this will be my first post but I' ve been reading a lot the past few month in this forum and others...
I am also looking for a tele + body for wildlife as an informed amateur and after alot of research I came to this conclusion:

5Diii + 300 f2.8 ii is + x2 iii extender
why ?
1/ I bought a 70-200 f4 because of the price a few years ago and regretten not having f2.8 IS later on, so I prefer to pay more now for the newest, best versions (FF & 4 stop IS) & not have any regrets later.
2/ 5Diii high iso with good auto focus, 6fps almost unlimited raw buffer shooting with a x1000 lexar cf.
Good autofocus & iso (= faster shutter speed) is very important because having unsharp wildlife pictures are no use.
3/ 300mm f2.8 ii is because it is very sharp, fast and still relatively handholdable. I initially wanted a 500mm but I know I would miss a lot of shots because it would stay at home too often because of its size, weight and need for a tripod. The 300mm is also cheaper. I'm not going to take the 500mm + tripod along when walking with our dogs or hiking. The 300mm is not small either but fits better in a normal sized backpack. Also the 5Diii has better double crosstype autofocus points with f2.8 lenses.
4/ 2x iii extender at f8 with this lens is the best IQ at 600mm for the price/weight ratio and focus is still ok.
This way I have a very fast (shutterspeed+autofocus) 300mm & the option to go to 600mm without tripod.

In my humble opinion I would pay a bit more and get the II version of any of these lenses.
For telephoto IQ, weight & the best available 4 stops IS (vs 2 stops in the old) are important. 
I know I would regret it in a few years & thats why I saved up a bit longer to get the best.
Have fun, you only live once ;-)


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 13, 2012)

I'd cast a vote for the new versions, too*

* Unless you run across a great deal on a VI lens.

I have been wanting a 400 f2.8 IS VI, but those are selling for ~$6k USD. A "deal" showed up on the local craigslist, but that was a 1999 copy of the VI 400 f2.8 IS, and it had an asing price of $5400. I'm sure someone bought it. 

A VII is "only" about $4k more.

The new version will hold its value for a while, at least until Canon does a VIII.

The 300mm f2.8 lenses are considerably less money, but is 300mm enough? Relying on extenders will cost you in AF speed and AF focus points used.


----------



## FarQinell (Aug 13, 2012)

Looking carefully at the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) plus 1.4xTC II is sharper wide open than the 500/4 (vers 1) and the 600/4 (vers 1) ie both wide open.

Now that's unbeatable versatility for you.

It seems that the 1.4XTC II was designed for this lens!

This 560/4 combo is also sharper than the latest 300/2.8 IS (vers 2) with 2xTC III wide open ie 600/5.6! Cheaper as well and the extra stop and 143mm aperture is a lot more use than 107mm!

(Is there anyone out there with practical experience of the 560/4 side by side with the others mentioned above to support the evidence of the ISO 12233 charts?)

The great advantage of course of an f2.8 super tele is that even if the IS breaks down - as everything must eventually - it is far more useful than an f4.

And even if the AF packs in the much brighter image given by f2.8 will facilitate more accurate manual focus than f4.

You have made the right choice in limiting your self to f2.8 long lenses and IMHO the best of the bunch must be the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) if wide open sharpness with/without TC is your main starting reference point.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> I have recently grow an interest in sports photography...
> 
> First we have to exclude the new Canon super teles as they are EXPENSIVE!!! It's true, I can't afford them no matter how good they are.
> 
> ...



I shoot sports and I use the 300mm f/2.8L IS (Version I) and a 1D MKIV. This lens is very sharp and very fast and it mates wonderfully with the MKIV. On the MKIV you will have a 35mm FL equivalent to 390mm, then just add the 1.4X for 546mm f/4 for Football and Soccer. I can shoot the 300mm on the MKIV at night @ f/2.8 and 1/1000sec between 6400-12,800 ISO without any problems depending on the lighting on the field. If you can shoot 1/800sec, it's even better. Slight noise reduction may be needed, but not always. If the game starts at dusk, I will start off with the 1.4X and as it gets darker I will take off the 1.4X if necessary. For day games, just add the 1.4X when needed and you're set.

For indoor basketball and hockey, the bare 300mmm would be good for opposite end shots. You may even want to use your 1Ds III for the indoor use. The MKIV is weather sealed and is more rugged for outdoor use and provides the extra reach for the larger fields. For outdoor night games in poor lighting you may need to shoot the bare 300mm, so that you can keep f/2.8. The 300mm is great on a monopod for field sports, and it's also definitely hand-holdable. It's also a lot cheaper than the 400mm version I. 

If you've never handled the 400mm Version I, then you're in for a shocker. You'll definitely need a monopod for this one. The 400mm f/2.8L IS Version I is a great lens for field sports, but it is pretty heavy and a bit long and cumbersome for indoor sports. It's also quite a bit more expensive than the 300mm f/2.8L IS. 

The 300mm f/2.8L IS Version 1, is cheaper, lighter, hand-holdable, better for indoor sports, and more flexible than the 400mm. 

Get yourself a nice monopod, knee pads, shoot low and you're good to go. I would put your 70-200mm on your 1Ds III and the 300mm f.8L IS on your MKIV and you are done!

Generally speaking for fields sports, a good FL would be between 400-500mm. If you're too long, you'll start missing shots and cutting off limbs. You could always crop a little.

For a 7D (1.6X) I would go with the 300mm f/2.8
For a MKIV (1.3X), I would go with the 300mm f/2.8 with or without 1.4X.
For the newer FF Bodies (1.0X) I would go with the 400mm f/2.8 with or without 1.4X, or the 500mm f/4.

With the new and improved noise control of the new 5DIII and 1DX, I predict that the 500mm f/4L will become more popular for field sports, because a lot of sports shooters are using the MKIV and 400mm for 520mm. Now with the new FF bodies, their 400mm will only be 400mm, or they could add the 1.4X for 420mm f/4 and slow down auto-focus by 50% and decrease IQ, or they could opt for the 500mm f/4L and maintain a faster AF and retain IQ.

Rich


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

heptagon said:


> zrz2005101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to......
> ...



I have to say the 70-200mm f2.8 itself on 7D maybe convenient but with a 1.4xTC I think the IQ will go down a lot and at f/4 I really don't think 7D's high ISO will be able to produce useable images


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 13, 2012)

I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version non IS lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider. The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
> Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider. The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
> The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.



They most certainly service the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses. I just had it done. If you can get a good deal on good shape used ones, you can also get both for less than the version II 400mm lens.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

Richard Lane said:


> zrz2005101 said:
> 
> 
> > I have recently grow an interest in sports photography...
> ...



I do use the Gitzo 3541L monopod with a Acratech ballhead if I need to. How do you think the AF on the 300mm IS Ver with the 1.4xTC compared to the bare lens itself? I have laid my hands on the 400 IS ver I a few times and I have to say that's a heavy chunk of lens, it will be impossible for me to handhold.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Looking carefully at the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) plus 1.4xTC II is sharper wide open than the 500/4 (vers 1) and the 600/4 (vers 1) ie both wide open.
> 
> Now that's unbeatable versatility for you.
> 
> ...



I have carefully compared the 300 and 400 lenses on the digital review and it seems to me that the 400mm f2.8 IS does a better job with 1.4 and the 2.0 extenders but not as good in its native focal range (surprisingy it seems to me that the 400mm also outperforms the 500 f/4 and the 600 f/4 with the extenders too, I wonder why). As for the 300, the Ver. II certainly outperforms the Ver. I in every way. Any thoughts on this?

I decided to go with the f2.8 rather than the 300/4, the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/4 DO because of the IQ and the extra stop or two of light as other than the 5D3 or 1Dx, the high ISO performance really doesn't go well and I need the fast exposure time so I will not be missing shots.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
> ...



+1 
they have not been discontinued for long and has another few years of service before Canon run out of parts for them


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
> Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider. The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
> The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.



I would go for the Ver. II as anyone would if I have the budget, but as I mention in my post, I do not have enough funds to buy them, not everyone can afford these lenses if you ask me so yea, sadly I have to pass them


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
> ...



I got great shape 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS together for $9500. If I had gone two of the new version 2's that would have been almost $19,000, about double the price. These lenses if taken care of are not going to have problems.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 13, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> I do use the Gitzo 3541L monopod with a Acratech ballhead if I need to. How do you think the AF on the 300mm IS Ver with the 1.4xTC compared to the bare lens itself? I have laid my hands on the 400 IS ver I a few times and I have to say that's a heavy chunk of lens, it will be impossible for me to handhold.



I honestly don't notice that much of a difference in AF speed, I guess that's because 50% of very-very fast is still very fast. There is a slight hit in IQ, but that lens is so sharp, that it's still very good and I hate to compromise and I'm pretty picky.

I actually went to the Camera Shop to buy the 400mm f/2.8L IS and the pro sports photographer that worked there, talked me into the 300mm f/2.8L IS. I'm using it with the 1D MKIV. The 400mm is the ultimate field sports lens, however it's pretty long for indoor sports, and it's a real beast. The 300mm with or without the 1.4X, is the good all-arounder for baseball, basketball, volleyball, hockey, motor-sports, cycling, Air Shows, and I even use it for Surfing with the 1.4X and some mild cropping. I also use it for Birds in flight and it's not that bad to travel with it. 

If you are going to be a professional sports photographer and you asked me what's the best lens for Football, Soccer, and Lacrosse, then I would say the 400mm. If you asked me what's the better all-around lens for many different sports, then I would say the 300mm. 

It's great that you have a monopod, but ballheads and monopods are like drinking and driving, they just don't mix. You can just screw the lens onto the monopod. If you would like to use it for BIF, then an RRS Monopod Head with quick release is great!

Rich


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them. Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
> ...


You are right, I intended to refer to the original NON-IS lenses that the OP had in his poll. They are not serviced any longer, while the IS version 1 lenses are and will be serviced for many years to come..
Sorry for the error.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 13, 2012)

Nope, I gotcha. I wasn't thinking about the previous versions either. You are right, there are a series prior to the IS versions. I couldn't imagine shooting football with a 400mm with no IS, haha


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 13, 2012)

I have never tried the older versions but I heard that they are not much worse. I have them listed as a cheap alternative to both the Ver I and Ver. II IS lenses.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 13, 2012)

I very recently picked up a used 300mm f2.8 IS and have enjoyed it greatly. Having used the 300mm f4 for a season of Lacrosse, I was very pleased with the results, but the f2.8 is noticeably quicker and sharper. I have only used the lens hand held and while noticeably heavier than the f4, it is not at all difficult to use this way.

I added a used 1.4x II (as some have suggested) and love the resulting 420mm f4. Some contrast is lost, but still very sharp, very fast 400mm.

For what you are describing and what bodies you are using, I feel this is the best choice.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 14, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I very recently picked up a used 300mm f2.8 IS and have enjoyed it greatly. Having used the 300mm f4 for a season of Lacrosse, I was very pleased with the results, but the f2.8 is noticeably quicker and sharper. I have only used the lens hand held and while noticeably heavier than the f4, it is not at all difficult to use this way.
> 
> I added a used 1.4x II (as some have suggested) and love the resulting 420mm f4. Some contrast is lost, but still very sharp, very fast 400mm.
> 
> For what you are describing and what bodies you are using, I feel this is the best choice.



Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 16, 2012)

zrz2005101 said:


> Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks



I have only used it handheld. I use a OP/TECH Super Classic strap attached to the lens body and rest as needed. During the action it is very easy to track and capture images without feeling tired. With field sports you are not holding the camera lens still, trying not to move or shake. Most of the shots are tracking, following the action and firing off as needed. Whenever the whistle blows, I take the opportunity to rest. 

My monopod head is too lightweight for the 300 f2.8. It worked fine for my 300 f4 IS and my 780-200 f2.8 IS, but I do not trust the 300 f2.8 on it.


----------

