Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 17, 2004, 4:43 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
falko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Hi guys

After reading all inquiries I have three lenses on my list:

EF 300 mm f/4.0 L IS USM

EF 400 mm f/5.6 L USM

EF 100-400 mm f/4.0-5.6 L IS USM

STILL NEED HELP. Remember I am interested in nature and sport. My interest is hockey; my son's and NHL. (We are season ticket holders-Atlanta Thrashers) In nature I am more interested in the big game.


falko is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 17, 2004, 5:18 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Each have their own merits, but given where your interests lie, I'd look at either the 100-400 or the 400. The prime 400 gives much sharper images, but the zoom gives you the advantages of zooming to various focal lengths and Image Stabilization. The 300 is probably too short for your interests. Of course, the 1.4 tele-extender will get you to the 420mm range and you'd still have IS, but the image quality wouldn't match the 400.

Personally, given the choices and your interests, I'd lean toward the 400 (which I have coming in today). Since I use a tripod for most of my nature shots, the IS is not as important to me. I have it on one of my other lenses and, while it is indeed nice, it's not a critical point for me. Of course, if the 400 f/5.6 came with IS, I wouldn't complain


ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 6:19 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

First you'll have to realize that you might have trouble getting any of those lenses into an NHL game. They are very strict about who has a camera and if it looks like you are a pro they won't let you in with it. You might get away with the 400 f5.6, but you might not with the 300 f4. It all depends on who checks you at the gate and their mood.

You won't be able to use a tripod or monopod at the NHL games, but you can use them at all the other locations. If you can find a place to lean against, or a bar to rest the camera on, you'll be all set without IS. (It's also a question of your standards... if they are high enough, you'll want IS even if you use a tripod.)

I'd generally agree with ohenry's comments as well.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 8:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. For sports, it has fit the bill perfectly for me. I've got a 1.4x and 2.0x TC as well. Here are a couple of links that NHL posted in another thread.

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_repor...gma/index.html
http://www.hoothollow.com/Tip-December%202003.html


aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 9:31 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I second aaltenburger as well:
1. You need a zoom for back and forth moving subjects (unless you are only shooting from the goal posts).
2. A 300 mm is already too close for most indoor shots, unless you only want portraits (Remember the 1.6x factor?)
3. Do you need a fast f/2.8 or you would be using strobes
4. "In nature I am more interested in the big game", this is larger than birding right, or you need more stand-off distance?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 9:38 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

I misread your interests. For some reason I was thinking big game in Nature. After rereading, I see now what you meant. With that in mind, zoom would be a much better choice.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 9:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Was just messing around tonight. Took a couple of pics with the 120-300, 1.4x and 2.0x TC. Only registered at 600mm though. BTW, this photo was handheld. Nothing else was done besides a crop.

http://www.pbase.com/image/30276701


aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 10:17 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

aaltenburger wrote:
Quote:
Took a couple of pics with the 120-300, 1.4x and 2.0x TC. Only registered at 600mm though...
1.4x and 2.0x TCs do not compute !!! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 6:19 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

aaltenburger :idea:

Have you tried to interchange the order of the 1.4x/2x between the camera and the lens, ie their stacking order? Who know it might work better one way than the other electrically (and optically), and also get the f-stop corrected! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2004, 7:22 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

I'll switch them around and give that a shot. That thing was HEAVY to handhold.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:24 PM.