Canon 300mm F4 IS for sports

antc

antc

Messages
4,355
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am considering the above lens for sports photography to go along with my MK1 70-200 IS. I should clarify if it helps that the type of sports I am referring to cover a wide range from football, to cycling sportive, to canoeing, ruby and so on...........basically i like to shoot all sorts. I would love a 300 f2.8 but they are very expensive hence me considering the f4.

My camera is a Canon 7d.

Also to go along with both of those lenses perhaps also a 1.4x convertor as well.

My questions are as follows -

1. What are peoples thoughts on the 300 f4 for sports? does anyone have one and use it for this. Also does anyone use it for wildlife which is something I would like to try.

2. Regarding convertors, which is best model to go for, version 2 or version 3 convertors in the 1.4x flavour? Much difference between the two other than cost? How do people find they effect IQ when used with the 70-200 and 300 f4?

Thanks in advance :)
 
Last edited:
I recently picked up a 2nd hand 300 f4 and 1.4ex ii. I've had a bit of a play shooting wildlife but no sports. IQ still seems pretty good with the 1.4ii fitted. I have a 5D.
I don't imagine you'll need the teleconverter for sports with your crop body- but it's handy for wildlife.
The general opinion seems to be that the the 2x iii is significanlty better than the 2x ii, but that there's less difference between the 1.4xiii and 1.4x ii.
 
I have used the 300 f4 for sports a loooong time ago 2009 .... no IS (but IS not good for sports anyway) its a fantastic lens and was my first long prime.. got me hooked and i went onto 300 then 400 2.8 .. all after using that lens :) wouldnt be great for floodlights football and in darker winter motnhs might struggle wihtout 2.8 .. but under normal use.. yes great..
 
Hi Anthony

I've the 300F4 IS and also have a Canon 1.4 TC III - which works very well with my lens. You do need good light to use the TC, but Ive had no problems and didn't really notice much of a drop off with the AF. I've used the combination at the Superbikes @ Oulton Park and managed to get the 125's very well...

These might be of some help

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...-300-f4-vs-canon-100-400.478447/#post-5520127

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-extender-comparison.463823/#post-5332663


I've not used any previous version of TC's, but have been very pleased with the Canon 1.4 mkIII and would certainly recommend buying the 300 F4. Like yourself, I would love the F2.8, but can't find one at a price I like.

Hope this is of some help...
 
I use the 300f4 non is with a 1.4 on a 7d... Great combo IMO, don't do sports but here's an example of a Bif shot


Heron by martyndt, on Flickr
 
Coyon said:
I recently picked up a 2nd hand 300 f4 and 1.4ex ii. I've had a bit of a play shooting wildlife but no sports. IQ still seems pretty good with the 1.4ii fitted. I have a 5D.
I don't imagine you'll need the teleconverter for sports with your crop body- but it's handy for wildlife.
The general opinion seems to be that the the 2x iii is significanlty better than the 2x ii, but that there's less difference between the 1.4xiii and 1.4x ii.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan, indeed you are right regarding sports I would think, I was more thinking of the tele for wildlife. Not sure I would try the 2x and I think it would degrade IQ and AF speed too much. Interested that there perhaps isn't much difference between 1.4x mk2 and mk3.
 
KIPAX said:
I have used the 300 f4 for sports a loooong time ago 2009 .... no IS (but IS not good for sports anyway) its a fantastic lens and was my first long prime.. got me hooked and i went onto 300 then 400 2.8 .. all after using that lens :) wouldnt be great for floodlights football and in darker winter motnhs might struggle wihtout 2.8 .. but under normal use.. yes great..
Click to expand...

Thanks Kipax, not sure I would be using it under floodlights to be honest, mainly during daytime I would think. Would love a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8, 400 definitely out of budget, although I have been looking round also for a 300 2.8 NON IS, but not many about it would seem and also would be concerned about repairs it anything broke as its quite old now.

Been following your work for a while on these forums and its good to get a recommendation from you for the 300 f4 lens. Was thinking IS would be more useful for the wildlife rather than sport, I turn it off on my 70-200 when shooting sports.
 
andyred said:
Hi Anthony

I've the 300F4 IS and also have a Canon 1.4 TC III - which works very well with my lens. You do need good light to use the TC, but Ive had no problems and didn't really notice much of a drop off with the AF. I've used the combination at the Superbikes @ Oulton Park and managed to get the 125's very well...

These might be of some help

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...-300-f4-vs-canon-100-400.478447/#post-5520127

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/canon-extender-comparison.463823/#post-5332663


I've not used any previous version of TC's, but have been very pleased with the Canon 1.4 mkIII and would certainly recommend buying the 300 F4. Like yourself, I would love the F2.8, but can't find one at a price I like.

Hope this is of some help...
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy, agree on good light, as the lens will be at f5.6 with the convertor attached. I imagine with the tele its great for motorsport at some circuits where you are quite far away, such as Donnington or Silverstone. How do you find the IQ with the tele on compared to it not being on, just bare lens?

Absolutely agree on the price thing, as I said above to Kipax, was keeping my eye out for a 300 2.8 NON IS, but seem scarce and worried about repairs of anything goes wrong.

I will take a look at those links as well thanks very much!! :)
 
Gary Coyle said:
Christ Martyn, what have you done to that full size image, its butchered to within an inch of its life.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's happened Gary as only using mobile, haven't looked at it full size on Flickr but was fine on my PC, cheers for the heads up though as will look when I get home as it isn't even cropped, just a little bit done in LR.
All sounds a bit worrying
 
antc said:
Is that full frame or has it been cropped. Detail looks good, nice and sharp.
Click to expand...

Not cropped but Gary has mentioned it looks butchered at full size, so now I'm at a loss as to weather something has gone bad on upload to flickr or not :(
 
Gary Coyle said:
Christ Martyn, what have you done to that full size image, its butchered to within an inch of its life.
Click to expand...

Just had a look at Full size on Flickr and you're right, looks awful!... no idea whats happened but also have the exact same shot on 500 px and tried to make it as large as possible and looks very different to the flickr upload!

http://500px.com/photo/64694695

(don't know how to insert 500px into here)
 
Last edited:
antc said:
Thanks Andy, agree on good light, as the lens will be at f5.6 with the convertor attached. I imagine with the tele its great for motorsport at some circuits where you are quite far away, such as Donnington or Silverstone. How do you find the IQ with the tele on compared to it not being on, just bare lens?

Absolutely agree on the price thing, as I said above to Kipax, was keeping my eye out for a 300 2.8 NON IS, but seem scarce and worried about repairs of anything goes wrong.

I will take a look at those links as well thanks very much!! :)
Click to expand...

Hi

Yes the TC is definitely a must of some circuits, but you can use it at closer circuits (if you're feeling brave :) ) - I've used the 300 + TC at oulton park for the SuperBikes for virtually full framed action.

IQ wise, having had a look back at the 125 I shot with the TC and I'm very happy with the results. I can't see any noticeable difference. As I said, this is the mkIII version.

Hope its of some help

A
 
Oddly the Flickr image looks fine to me and much the same as the 500px. I wonder if it's a browser issue? Chrome/win 8.1/42" LCD TV for me.
 
Gary Coyle said:
A lot of those on flickr look terrible, massive haloing and terrible jaggies and jpeg artifects
Click to expand...

Yes, they do :( i've disabled the permissions as its shameful, had a look in LR and full size looks ok.
i'm wondering if i should resize before uploading to Flickr, though my knowledge of things like this is minimal to say the least
 
This is a very big crop of the shot uploaded direct, looks a bit noisy but nothing as bad as it looked on flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top