Is a Canon 300Lf4IS fast enough.

Lenswork

Lenswork

Messages
405
Name
Len
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, i,m after peoples opinions who have the Canon 300mmf4 IS, is it fast enough for sport eg rugby/football/motorsport, or do i really need f2.8. Obviously price comes into it, the Canon 300mmLf2.8IS is too dear:eek:, the other options i have are 2nd hand Sigma 120-300f2.8 or the Sigma 300mmf2.8 prime which come into roughly the same price bracket as the new Canon 300f4.
I cant see myself shooting under floodlights, so it would be used in daylight and coupled with either my 20D/40D.
I already have a Sigma 70-200f2.8 and a X1.4 conv. which when added makes it f4. I have used that combination but find it slows the autofocus down a little in lower lighting levels, i'm assuming the Canon would be a lot better in the same situation.
I've had the belief that a prime lens will out perform a zoom so that is why i am after a prime and would rather not go down the 120-300 road, but if it is a better lens that is what will count.
Sorry for the long post.
Looking forward to your comments.
 
I would go for the 120-300 or 300 with f2.8
You just never know when the need for the extra stop will become handy.
Personally I have had the Sigma for the last year, and have also tried the 300mm f2.8 Sigma. And from those two I would choose the 120-300 anyday.
The image quality in my eyes is very close to each other.. and I think I achived better results with the zoom.

A fellow tog has used the 300mm f4 for day-time footy and sports. But last summer moved to used the Sigma 120-300, after having a go with mine.

My SIgma has sat on the shelf over the winter - but as football starts now here in Finland. It came out few weeks ago and I didn't remember that the images were so sharp. So.. my vote would be for the Sigma.
 
I have not long bought this lens and love it used it only once really for wild life (birds of prey) and it was fine will be using it at silverstone soon so that will be the real test.
yea I would love the 2.8 but cant justify the money
 
GooGaBu and rickj thanks for the replies, 1 vote for each lens so far. Your not making it easy for me to make up my mind:shrug::naughty:
I would really like a 2.8 but money will dictate the outcome, if i can get one for the same price as the Canon f4 then i will see.
Thanks Len
 
I had a similar dilemma. I really suggest you look at a 2nd hand non-IS Canon 300 2.8. You should be able to get one for £1500 . In fact you just missed one at £1390 but these guys always have stock coming in. They've got a Canon 300 F4 as well :thumbs:

I bought my Canon 300 2.8 from them and I think for that amount of wedge you are going to keep the lens for a long time so it's best to get 2.8. The lenses are built like bricks so they last for ages. And if there's a bit of paint wear it doesn't matter, it just makes you look like a grizzled pro.

I cant recommend the Sigmas I'm afraid. There's a reason you dont see many of them around the sports grounds.
 
Gary Coyle said:
all a question of light, these were all shot at f/4 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=128416
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input Gary. Those shots are really spot on. I would love to achieve that quality. What lens was it, i'm assuming its a Nikon looking at that camera you use? What was the exif on those shots, shows what can be achieved at f4 when the weather brightens up.

Tobers said:
I had a similar dilemma. I really suggest you look at a 2nd hand non-IS Canon 300 2.8. You should be able to get one for £1500 . In fact you just missed one at £1390 but these guys always have stock coming in. They've got a Canon 300 F4 as well :thumbs:

I bought my Canon 300 2.8 from them and I think for that amount of wedge you are going to keep the lens for a long time so it's best to get 2.8. The lenses are built like bricks so they last for ages. And if there's a bit of paint wear it doesn't matter, it just makes you look like a grizzled pro.

I cant recommend the Sigmas I'm afraid. There's a reason you dont see many of them around the sports grounds.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tobers for the heads up. I have been looking through used sections trying to find a 2.8 within my budget, especially the Canon 300 non IS, few and far between i'm afraid, but still looking. Like you said its a lot of money to spend on the wrong lens. I've seen a few on the bay, one on there now in fact from the USA. Looks really tatty, lots of paint wear but optics are said to be spot on, keeping an eye on it.

Thanks
 
On your Canon you need a f2.8 bit of glass before it will use its high accuracy focus mode... thats the way Canon work... worth bearing in mind.

Also, FYI, I had a 300 f4 with my 30D and although it is a very good lens, dull and gloomy days (daylight... daytime...) noticeably slowed everything down.

Probably the best bet would be a Siggy 120-300 2.8...
 
desantnik said:
On your Canon you need a f2.8 bit of glass before it will use its high accuracy focus mode... thats the way Canon work... worth bearing in mind.

Also, FYI, I had a 300 f4 with my 30D and although it is a very good lens, dull and gloomy days (daylight... daytime...) noticeably slowed everything down.

Probably the best bet would be a Siggy 120-300 2.8...
Click to expand...

Desantnik thanks for the reply. Excuse my ignorance but i've never heard of 'high accuracy focus mode' on the Canons. Is it the more light entering the focus system the more accurate the focus.:shrug: Could you please expand.
Another vote for the 120-300, they do seem quite popular. Now only if their price would drop a bit.
Looks like a i'll be saving a bit longer then.
 
If you have f2.8 or faster glass on your Canon (pretty much any of them) then the centre focus point (on the xxxD and xxD and 5D's) has greater accuracy... check out your manual!

And yes, it needs more light to function.

The Siggy 120-300 2.8 is by all accounts a very nice flexible lens for motorsport, getting on for 300 prime capabilities, plus giving you a chance for a still very good 155-420 zoom with a 1.4x TC on it...

The only thing it lacks is Canon's very credible IS system...
 
I've just purchased a 70-200 F4L IS but have mainly used the 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8 in the past. I really notice motion blur with the F4L photographing the children in the garden in the early evening (even when seemingly sunny) so have had to pump up the ISO a fair bit compared to the other lenses.

It's IS is just brilliant though as I don't have very steady hands so 200mm without it might have been a challenge for me.

Maybe that helps!
 
Sigmas fall apart...........
i had a year of pro use with them a while back and, while the pic quality was acceptable for magazine use, the build quality lacked and i spent a lot of time screwing them back together

for example the 300 f2.8 was held together with small self tapping screws and they wound themselves out with time

since switching back to the white stuff i havent had any probs and the autofocus speed was noticeably quicker too, the Canon 300 f4 is a tad slower AF wise and as has been said you often need that extra stop of light
 
I've never had a Sigma fall apart, and I have used two of Sigma's 300mm EX zooms extensively.

OP, I was deciding between a 300mm F4 IS prime when I have the opportunity to pick up another 120-300 - having used it a lot in the past with cracking results I snapped it up.
 
pearce_jj said:
I've just purchased a 70-200 F4L IS but have mainly used the 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8 in the past. I really notice motion blur with the F4L photographing the children in the garden in the early evening (even when seemingly sunny) so have had to pump up the ISO a fair bit compared to the other lenses.

It's IS is just brilliant though as I don't have very steady hands so 200mm without it might have been a challenge for me.

Maybe that helps!
Click to expand...
Thanks pearce_jj for your reply, right now IS isn't a main consideration, but if its on a lens i purchase its a bonus. Looks more and more like i'll be saving a bit more for a 2.8.

photobiker said:
Sigmas fall apart...........
i had a year of pro use with them a while back and, while the pic quality was acceptable for magazine use, the build quality lacked and i spent a lot of time screwing them back together

for example the 300 f2.8 was held together with small self tapping screws and they wound themselves out with time

since switching back to the white stuff i havent had any probs and the autofocus speed was noticeably quicker too, the Canon 300 f4 is a tad slower AF wise and as has been said you often need that extra stop of light
Click to expand...
photobiker thanks for your input, pro users obviously give a lot more use and abuse to their lens's and the old saying goes you get what you pay for comes to mind.
I have 4 Sigma lens's and can honestly say they are not showing any sign of falling apart, but, the use i get out of them is nowhere near pro use. The main thing really, is that i want to buy the best i can within my budget whether its an f4 lens or a f2.8 lens. and right now the Canonf4, new, and both the Sigmas,used, fall within that budget. So its just deciding which is the best one to buy. Right now it looks like the Sigmas.

RichardtheSane said:
I've never had a Sigma fall apart, and I have used two of Sigma's 300mm EX zooms extensively.

OP, I was deciding between a 300mm F4 IS prime when I have the opportunity to pick up another 120-300 - having used it a lot in the past with cracking results I snapped it up.
Click to expand...

Thanks Richard i think i am going down the Sigma road. Whether its the prime or zoom i dont know yet. I would like the prime but i need to be convinced that there are sharp copies out there. But if a 120-300 comes along first who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top