# Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?



## gshocked (Jan 20, 2014)

Hi All,

I just wanted to get some opinions on using a Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?

I have a Canon 5d mk III and was wondering if this is a good combination? On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D. I know there is a a possible replacement coming out soon but its not my primary photography interest and I've heard/experinced so many good things about the 7D. I might be a little older bit its still holds it ground.

Please post your thoughts or pictures using this lens. There aren't that many reviews or videos that give deep insight on this lens? There is a Digital-Rev video but its not that helpful.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 20, 2014)

I shot the OHSAA State Track Meet one year with a 1D4 and 300 f/4L lens. I personally thought it was sufficiently sharp, sufficient AF speed, and the IS helped if I couldn't get around the track and had to shoot a long way away. Obviously the only downside would be not as shallow of DOF as the 2.8 (expensive) and it is slightly less sharp. But other than that, I don't have any complaints. If you don't need to go wider than f/4 I think it is perfectly fine to use and I think you'll be happy with the results.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 21, 2014)

I am not a sports photographer but I have been using the Canon 300 F4 IS for quite a while. Up until I got the F2.8 version this was my primary lens for Birds in Flight and it performs excellently in all respects. The only proviso is that for reasonably close/fast moving subjects I turn off the IS. Whilst the IS is good it is an older system and can be upset on fast moving subjects.
I am really regretting having to sell my 300 F4 but I cannot justify having 2 300 mm lenses!


----------



## gshocked (Jan 21, 2014)

Hi all,

Could people post some of their images?

Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2014)

gshocked said:


> On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.



Why? Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII. The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.


----------



## Harv (Jan 21, 2014)

Here is a link to a rugby match I shot a couple of years ago using that lens on my 1D Mark IV. It's not as spectacular as my 300/2.8 but it did a credible job.....

http://harveyg.smugmug.com/Events/2011-Highschool-Girls-Rugby

Hope it's what you are looking for.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.
> ...



Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 21, 2014)

Good point. I admit that I shot it on a 1D4 (390 mm).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480
> 
> I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length



The 'reach benefit' is mostly an illusion. It's a 'crop factor' not a 'magnification factor'. A 300mm lens doesn't _become_ 480mm on APS-C, you're just cropping away the outer part of the frame. 

A 'reach benefit' for a 7D over a 5DIII only exists if you need more than 8.6 MP for your desired output. If 8.6 MP is sufficient (up to 16x24" / A2 prints), then the 5DIII image cropped to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will give you equivalent IQ at up to around ISO 800 (on the 7D), and progressively better IQ as ISO increases from there (at some point, probably ISO 3200 but certainly ISO 6400, the 7D's noise is so bad that an up-res'd 5DIII image would be better even if you do need all 18 MP).

Some might also cite the 2 extra fps as an advantage, and it is one in theory…but in practice, I believe the superior AF performance of the 5DIII will yield a higher overall keeper rate despite the lower fps.


----------



## gshocked (Jan 22, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...



Yes to both. Reach is also another reason. I like to keep that 300mm f/4 at f/4 and not have to use a 1.4 extender


----------



## Phil L (Jan 23, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Could people post some of their images?
> 
> Thanks



This is my wildlife photo blog where virtually every shot was taken with a 300 f4 often with a 1.4 attached.
I used to shoot sports for a living and going back to the film days with an EOS 1n body, I mostly used a 300 f4.
I still have my older non IS version as well as the current IS version and both are super sharp and have excellent IQ with very fast AF on a 7D.

http://phillanoue.com


----------



## gshocked (Jan 23, 2014)

Phil L said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



Hi Phil,

These photos are amazing. I like to Great Blue Heron image. 
Did you do much post production? I love the colour temp in your images!

Thanks for sharing


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.
> ...



The other reason would be the obvious crop factor advantage. I mean, that is basically WHY people pick the 7D for pretty much anything...REACH! Although, I would personally wait for the 7D II than the 7D, as that should bring APS-C IQ up a notch...not as good as the 5D III, but certainly better than the 7D.



neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480
> ...



The reach advantage is a pixel size thing as much as it is a crop factor thing. If the 7D had the same pixel size as the 5D III, then you would be correct, "reach benefit" would be an illusion. But the 7D has pixels that are quite a bit smaller than the 5D III's. If we only factor in pixel size, the 7D has a 1.5x "reach benefit", so a 300mm lens is quite literally like a 450mm lens on FF. That is no myth, that is ACTUAL advantage thanks to the pixel size difference.

I think that pretty much everyone knows that you get 18mp rather than 8.6mp with the 7D. Even if they don't know the exact numbers, the difference between the 7D and 5D III in terms of relative crop area is quite large. And it isn't just about printing large, either. The 7D offers you EVEN MORE cropping ability...so if you need to crop the center 50% out of the 7D image, your talking about maybe having 10mp vs. 4mp, at which point the argument for the 5D III almost becomes irrelevant. Don't forget the downsampling advantage, either. For those who primarily publish on the web, downsampling the 7D to web size has the effect of GREATLY reducing noise levels. Since your downsampling more than twice the number of pixels as the 5D III's 8.6mp, noise levels normalize quite nicely...such that you generally cannot tell any difference between the two, with the exception that the 7D images are more detailed, sharper, and crisper.

The general advantage of the 5D III is that you can use longer lenses with narrower apertures and achieve similar IQ for identical framing. For example, one could use the 500mm f/4 on a 5D III at f/8 with ISO 6400 and get similar IQ as a 300mm f/4 on a 7D at f/4 with ISO 1600. But, that assumes you can afford the 500mm f/4 lens, and need to stop it down to f/8 to get the DOF you want. In all other circumstances, the 7D + 300mm f/4 is the better option, because it puts more pixels on subject than the 5D III + 300mm f/4.

I completely agree about the frame rate. The 7D has it's AF issues, and the intrinsic jitter basically negates abut 2fps. That still doesn't make the 7D "worthless" relative to the 5D III. If you have the funds to buy a great white lens, then indeed, the 7D could really only serve as a seldom-used backup body. But if all you have is the 300mm f/4 L, then the 7D, even though it only has an "effective frame rate" of about 5-6fps from a keeper-rate standpoint, it still most definitely offers the reach benefit over the 5D III.

While you and I may be able to enjoy the benefits that Canon Great White Mark II lenses have to offer, it is still a rather rare commodity we have. Having only owned the 600/4 II for about eight months, I still remember quite clearly why I picked the 7D originally, rather than waiting for the 5D III. You can't deny the reach benefit with shorter lenses...it's real, and it's meaningful.


----------



## faidwen (Jan 23, 2014)

Yes it is. So long as you are outdoors and there is sun  Otherwise, if you are in a dome with limited overhead lighting, you may find you need to increase the ISO to freeze the action, and in that case you might find a lot of noise.

Or, go for the 2.8 or better.


----------



## Phil L (Jan 23, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Phil L said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...



Hey thanks! I appreciate you checking out the photo blog and glad you liked the pictures.
I do very minimal post processing, only minor tweaks because I like things to look as natural as how I saw them in the wild. And believe it or not, I only shoot jpegs. 

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## Aswah (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't do sports photography but I was chasing some butterflies around the desert for a while and took these shots with my 5dmarkIII with a 300mmf/4 with a 2x attached...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aswah/sets/72157637811453243/


----------



## dpc (Jan 23, 2014)

Never done any sports photography but use a 7D with a 300mm f/4 plus the Extender EF 1.4x III quite frequently. I like the combination.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

faidwen said:


> Yes it is. So long as you are outdoors and there is sun  Otherwise, if you are in a dome with limited overhead lighting, you may find you need to increase the ISO to freeze the action, and in that case you might find a lot of noise.
> 
> Or, go for the 2.8 or better.


+1 - if you're indoors, f/2.8 is often marginal to get 1/1000s, and I'd nix the 7D idea, too. 



neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.
> ...


+1 on this, too. Even with DxO PRIME, at ISO 3200+, which you'll need a lot for sports, even outdoors if the light is low, you'll be very disappointed with the 7D compared to the 5DIII. 

Unless you really need the reach, I'd consider the 70-200 f/2.8L (or if budget allows - IS II) + 1.4x extender (when needed). That combination rocks for sports photography inside or out and having zoom is very handy for most sport shooting.


----------



## dpc (Jan 23, 2014)

A couple more photos with the 7D and 1.4 III extender. One of a female pronghorn and one of a female sparrow.


----------



## jrh (Jan 23, 2014)

I have a 5Dmk3 and the 7D. I rent the 300 f4 often for sports but have been holding off to buy to see what Canon releases this year. I much prefer the 300 f4 on the 5D over the 7D - the backgrounds are better and the focus speed and accuracy is much better. Yes, the 5D is slower frame rate but the keeper rate is significantly higher at the end of the day with the 5D. 

I had the same thought with the crop factor getting out to 480mm but, personally, did not find any advantage to this except with birds. For sports with the 300mm the 5Dmk3's autofocus works with the 300mm f4 so much better it has actually made me want to sell off my 7D - I would rather pop on the 1.4x extender on the 5D set up and crop from there.


----------



## Roger Jones (Jan 23, 2014)

I like the 300 f4. I use it a lot for events, stage and concert stuff often with the 1.4 extender. Its not the 2.8 but its not bad.

http://bit.ly/1dYnjlo
http://bit.ly/KOjioN
http://bit.ly/KOjioN


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I just wanted to get some opinions on using a Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?
> 
> ...



Yeah it can be quite good for sports (of course it depends, if you are talking indoor basketball then maybe it's not the best place to start).

For field sports, I preferred it to the bare 70-200. It's actually easy to move around and stop on a dime than it's big 300 2.8 brother. I liked it a lot more than 70-200 2.8 non-IS + 1.4x TC combo.

Here are a few shots from the 300 f/4 non-IS from the short while I had one between using 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 IS non-L alone and a 300 2.8 IS sometimes with TC, a few are from among the first sports I ever shot:


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.
> ...



For for more reach.

Although, granted, for soccer/football I don't think the 7D AF is maybe good enough to give up the 5D3 even with the extra reach.

For surfing I think the 7D definitely has AF good enough to be worth the extra reach though. Same for birds sitting around and moving about a bit (where it almost seems to do better anyway).

The 7D2 though might well use 5D3 AF or even better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480
> ...



Lots of times 300mm on a 5D3 won't fill up the central 8MP for soccer or football or baseball though. It's not too bad though. It's nicer using the 300mm on a 5D2/5D3 than using it on an old 8-10MP APS-C for sure though, since you get the same-nearly the same reach plus you can shoot the players much closer in thanks to the much wider FOV.

yeah for soccer and football I think you are right about the AF vs fps thing, for surfing though I don't think so


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



My experience was that the 300 f/4 non-IS + 1.4x TC AF kinda struggled for sports (although I only ever used that combination on xxD, then again the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC AF better, at least with 40D/50D that was still a little rough with the old 20D), although the image quality was fine for birds sitting around.

The 300 f/4 IS has a different AF system and different optical system than the one I used though.


----------



## Phil L (Jan 23, 2014)

dpc said:


> Never done any sports photography but use a 7D with a 300mm f/4 plus the Extender EF 1.4x III quite frequently. I like the combination.



Terrific shot! I also am very happy with a 300 f4 and a 1.4 on a 7D for birds and coincidently I shot some white pelicans and a bald eagle this afternoon using that combo.

More of the white pelican series in today's post:
http://phillanoue.com/2014/01/23/move-over-gang-im-coming-in/


----------



## Badger (Jan 24, 2014)

I've been using an f/4 lens for indoor sports on a 6D. I would not recommend it :-( Outdoors, no problems.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 24, 2014)

why waste money on a 7D a new 70D kicks its ass in almost every respect and has added benefits of a flippy screen and wifi which the 5Dmk3 do not have, so as a second body to the 5Dmk3 i think the 70D would be a better choice...

I have the 300f4L IS i got it on ebay for $700 so a nice bargain the IS is a little clunky but works fine even though its the older design it is noisy. Optically the lens is great and its a wonderfully well balanced lens on a 5Dmk3 too very very comfortable to shoot with

I use it often with the kenko 1.4 DGX300 TC or even with the canon 2x mk3 TC stopped down to f11 images are quite decent with this combo for 600mm...


----------



## gshocked (Jan 24, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Hi All,
> ...



These Images look Great!.

In regards to the types of sport, it would be mainly outdoors. I do have a 70-200 f2.8 IS and someone did suggest to me that I should just buy a 1.4x tele-converter but I don't want to loose image quality.
Am I correct in thinking this?

Thanks,


----------



## gshocked (Jan 24, 2014)

Aswah said:


> I don't do sports photography but I was chasing some butterflies around the desert for a while and took these shots with my 5dmarkIII with a 300mmf/4 with a 2x attached...
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/aswah/sets/72157637811453243/



These images look amazing!


----------



## dude (Jan 27, 2014)

The only time that lens will work on a football field is on sunny days and very well lit fields at night. 

During the day, at a college (SEC) football game, I did use my 70-200 ii IS 2.8 with a 1.4iii TC. No problems. Bump the ISO up to 400 or 800 and get great photos. On the 7D, same goes for it. During the day it is great. 

Turn off the lights and things go south fast. I now have a 300mm ii 2.8 which is an absolute necessity in my area for football at night.


----------



## TheJock (Jan 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480
> ...


I would like to ask a quick question on the FF 5DIII compared to the 7D as mentioned here on this thread, I’m about to buy a 70D so what’s the general consensus on IQ between cropping a FF image from a 5DIII to full size image from the crop sensor of the 70D? Is there better IQ than the 7D?
P.S. I can't afford a 5DIII :-\


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 29, 2014)

TheJock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...


There was a slight improvement in image quality 70D, over 7D. Ironically, at ISO 100 is perceived much better tonal gradation as the blue sky, which is ugly in 7D. ISO 1600 in the amount of noise is the same, but the quality of the grain is better in 70D. If you can not afford 5D mark iii, currently 70D is the best choice. However, if you really need to shoot at ISO 6400, it is recommended to save a little more, and in the future buy 5D mark iii, or maybe 5D mark iv.


----------



## TheJock (Jan 29, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If you can not afford 5D mark iii, currently 70D is the best choice. However, if you really need to shoot at ISO 6400, it is recommended to save a little more, and in the future buy 5D mark iii, or maybe 5D mark iv.


Thank you 
I intend on keeping a crop body for sports and the like, maybe I'll buy a 5DIII one day, but at this moment a crop suits my style and budget better, I just wanted to know if I was making the right choice of body considering the rave reviews of the 7D, but the 70D looks like the one for me 8)


----------

