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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 13, 2006, 3:48 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23
Default

:?Thoughts on Canons 300mm 4.0L lens. Like or dislike? Articles and reviews give good marks. Albeit it is a "slower" lens and more suitable to high light conditions. Anyone using one to shoot sporting events? If one does find its way into my bag, a 1.4x TC can be added as well. Will be primarily used with a 20D. 70-200 2.8 is primary sports lens. Just looking to reach out little further for those hard to reach shots.
DaMat is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 13, 2006, 4:30 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

If you already have 70-200/f2.8 as your 'primary' sports lens, I would rather consider Sigma 100-300/f4. I personally do not like primes anymore. They are of better quality but I like to have 'zoom' for framing. Or even better is Sigma 120-300/f.2.8, but heavy and expensive.
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 11:07 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26
Default

I bought the 300f4is and used it at spring training for baseball pics. Here is a sample of what it can do.
Attached Images
 
yussi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2006, 6:38 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'm with GM2006on this - It's more the flexibility of a zoom vs IS decision...

Optically the zoom is better than the prime in this case according to the MTF's (and not the other way around):

100-300 f/4 HSM: vs EF-300mm f/4L:


-> Try this putthe 1.4x TC on your 70-200 f/2.8 and tape it fixedto 200 (i.e. 280mm @ f/4)!

Use it for a day following the actions and see if you can live with it... :idea:

(alsoremember you're doing primary sport so think twice about IS!!!)

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2006, 8:49 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

I have the 100-300 f4 sigma and love it I havent done any sports as of yet(hope to get to a yankee game sometime soon).I have used it in nature for pics of insects and so far small animals like chipmunks.I would say like NHL says try it out and see if you like it.
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2006, 2:16 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

I saw where a pbaser has just recently added the 300mm 4.0L IS to her collection & she has some great pix from thelens. Go to: www.pbase.com/isabel95
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2006, 7:30 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DaMat,

The challenge you're going to face using a prime lens as your primary sporting lens is you'll need a 2nd body with a shorter lens. If you're close enough to get good action shots then you're close enough the action will come inside the 480mm that lens on a 20d will give you. If you don't have a 2nd body with, say, a 70-200 mounted then you should either consider buying one or go with one of the Sigma zooms.

Also as others have mentioned, the Sigma zooms are at least the equivelent in IQ of the Canon 300 f4. The Canon 300 2.8 still rules the roost but it's $4000.

Of the 3 (canon f4, sigma 100-300 4, sigma 120-300 2.8) the Sigma 100-300 f4 has the best IQ. But the 120-300 has 2.8 - and that's HUGE. I actually had to use ISO 3200 and 2.8 at a softball game the other day because it was so gloomy. And when I shoot HS football there's no way an f4 lens will do.

This spring I switched from a 70-200 2.8 to the Sigma 120-300 2.8 as my primary sports lens. It's expensive and heavy (as is any 2.8 300mm lens) but the zoom aspect saved me $1300 because I didn't have to buy a 2nd body. So, in the end it was cheaper than buying a Canon 300mm f4 AND I get an extra stop. I just think an f4 prime lens is a poor solution for a primary sports lens - too many situations where it can't be used (unless you have another body and a faster lens for low light).


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2006, 9:19 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Unless you absolutely want IS (which is less useful for action), this is what a review has to say about the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm

"MTF (resolution)

The lens was capable to deliver absolutely excellent resolution figures in the MTF lab easily comparable to fix focals in the respective range. At 100mm it even scratches the sensor limits of the EOS 350D. At 200mm and 300mm the center resolution is already excellent at wide-open aperture whereas the borders remain in very good territory. Very impressive!
"
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2006, 2:13 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23
Default

John, I understand fully what you're saying. And wouldn't we all just once in this life like to have the $$$ to just go out and pick up whatever we wanted (eg. 300mm 2.8L). I have a second body (my D60) which in my opinion gives me great results. For what I do and the small business I do part time, my 200 2.8L w/1.4 EXII & a 24mm 1.4L give me all I could possibly want without going into the big high $$$. Being at field level, the 200 delivers great results. I think what I was looking at was putting one additional lens in the bag that would allow me to "reach out" just a tad more when the circumstance called for it. Doing sports shooting, something in the 2.8 range is a definite when shooting in low light. And when not doing sports, something that could allow me that extra range when I wanted it. I'm not at the place where I have to run right out and do a turn over in equipment. Just looking at my options. Thanks for everyone's input
DaMat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2006, 8:02 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Default

The Canon EF 300 f/4 IS is doing better with TC1.4x than the Sigma 100-300 f/4HSM
according to photozone.de:

Canon EF 300 f/4 IS
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._4is/index.htm



Sigma 100-300 f/4HSM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm

That might be of some importance, as many users will feel the need of more reach and are therefore often putting a 1.4x TC on the lens.

On the other hand the zoom range 100-300 is nice to have compared to the static 300mm.

But both lenses are HQ lenses in my opinion.


websurfer 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 8:46 PM.