Canon 400 2.8 IS or 500 4.0 IS, Need Advice

Looking for a lens to shoot Sports, Wildlife and Birds in that order. Sports will be Baseball / Softball, Football, Soccer and Basketball.

I just got my Canon 300 2.8 IS in today, and although I love it, and even took it out and shot some deer tonight I find I am needing more reach even with the 1.4 TC on.

Will be shooting mainly with the 1D Mark IV

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II and looking for a good all around long lens. I wanted to save some cash but I do not have very long if I want to return this lens, I could also order the 2X TC first but even when I was close to deer tonight, having to do a lot of cropping.

Renting is not on option, no where near me has these lenses for rent, and heck to order one online, its a hefty price.

Any Advice would be greatly appreciated, even if its Stick with the 300 2.8. I am not willing to give up any quality or speed.

I would go with the 500 4.0 but fear will be hard to use at night football games, and almost too long

I need to add, I know there is no one do it all lens, but struggling to find the lens that will fit my needs the best, not my wants.
Current gear is
1Ds Mark III, 1D IV, 16-35 2.8L, 24-105 4.0 L IS, 70-200 28. IS L Mark II, and for now the 300 2.8 IS and 1.4 TC.

I don't know how far away you would be when doing sports photography but for wildlife I would get the 500.

Denny,

The answers are going to be subjective, you said the lens was for sports, wildlife and birds in that order. I would spend more time with the 300/2.8 (with and W/O) the 1.4 TC and hit all three categories. That's the only drawback of the 300 - it's reach, IMO a better mammal lens. The 500 is a great birding lens, challenging to make one of these two lenses fit well in all three categories - both are great glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Cashdollar

Denny,

The answers are going to be subjective, you said the lens was for sports, wildlife and birds in that order. I would spend more time with the 300/2.8 (with and W/O) the 1.4 TC and hit all three categories. That's the only drawback of the 300 - it's reach, IMO a better mammal lens. The 500 is a great birding lens, challenging to make one of these two lenses fit well in all three categories - both are great glass.

---

i am going to take your advice.

I just got done processing some images and I have to say I am amazed, I love them except the ones where I needed more reach. I will spend some more time with this lens, to be honest I know the answer, its to have both the 300 2.8 and the 500 4.0, and add in the 70-200 2.8 IS II and I have it all pretty much covered. It just happened that I went out to photograph deer and that is a long range game.

Denny, I agree that you should stick with the 300 f/2.8 for Sports and if you wish more reach the 500 f/4, I have both these lenses and they are at the top of their game.

I have no trouble using the 500 on a Monopod.

PS I tried and HATED the 400 f/2.8., great quality shocking ergonomics.

Denny in the film days the 400 2.8 was a big deal but not any more. It is very heavy and doesn't have the reach if you find having to use a converter on your 300. Think will be better with the 500 particularly if you already have the 300 2.8 Its all according to need !! btw if you have never used a 400 2.8 would suggest renting one !!!!

Denny,
I use the 400 f2.8 IS primarily for wildlife. Anything you shoot with the native lens even at wide open aperture, the output is great. The weight is definitely a big pain when trekking. Though the 400 f2.8 is good with TCs, speed of focus acquisition suffers when you slap a TC to any lens. I am able to handhold this lens, but not for long. With a TC, handholding becomes really really tough.

If your first priority is sports, then 400 f2.8 would be the first option. 500mm would be a bit long for sports, unless you are shooting from gallery. If birds and wildlife gets equal priority, then better to go for the 500mm as it is cheaper and less weight. In night games, if you are planning to use a TC with 300 f2.8, the focus acquisition is going to be slow. So you have to be prepared for that.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

I owned the EF 400mm f/5.6L before I bought the EF 500mm f/4L IS. After I received the 500mm I never picked up the 400mm again.

I find the 500mm way more versatile than I ever dreamed, with and without the 1.4TC. The TC stays on about 80% of the time. For larger subjects, like your football, you learn to adjust your distance. You'll simply move your position on the sideline to get the perspective that you want. With the 400mm f/2.8 you don't save any bulk or weight, but I suspect that you'll use the 1.4x TC with that almost all the time and wish that you had even more reach. Since you already own the 70-200mm f/2.8 you might think of carrying it on an extra body when you're shooting football. ( I routinely carry a 7D and a 5D MkII, to cover more ground without having to change lenses).

Everyone's style is different. I would consider using the 300 F2.8 on the 1DsMKIII and use a 500 f4 on the MK4. Corp the 1Ds MKIII images as needed and use the MK4 and 500 for those tight comps. The 500 F4 is absolutely super in all respects. For me the 400 F 2.8 is way too much $$, weight and hassle for the 100 mm you will gain.

I used a 400 f/2.8 for equestrian and other sports and wildlife photography with great success for many years. For sports the 400 f/2.8 is a killer lens, tack sharp-sharp-sharp, extremely fast AF acquisition, with shallow DOF to isolate subjects. F/2.8 means even with a 2x at 800 f/5.6 you can still use all AF points as opposed to just the central AF pt. As the lens is initially sharper than the 300/500/600 lenses it continues to shine with converter use. The lens is also wonderful for mammals, but typically will require converter use for birds. The 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 I found to be the most versatile when shooting indoor sports, of course this depends on your distance to the subject. For Track and Field the 400 f/2.8 proved the ticket. Tough call, but one we all go through. Fortunately, I now have 300/400/500/600 lenses to choose from depending on the subject and task at hand. But, it took me 27 years to get them all. It comes down to what makes the dollars, sports or ....., and picking the right tool for right now. If this is for fun, the story changes :) You know...the want vs need thing, again -lol

Just a thought...if this is a business you can lease the 400 f2./8 with a dollar buy out, as long as having the lens produces an income greater than the monthly payment you should be golden.

Feel free to call or contact me if desired. I have been there!

Best,

Chas

The 400/2.8 IS is now my favorite lens when shooting from hides, which is how the majority of bird photography is done in Europe. With the 2x I have a 800/5.6 with all AF points working on the 7D. It also focuses much closer than the other big guns, so no need for tubes. AF slows down a bit only with the 2x but with the 1.4 remains very fast, making it a very good 500mm to track bird in flight.

Giulio

Well after going to a minor league baseball game, I decided NOT to get rid of my 300 2.8. It had all the room I wanted, even at center field with the 1D IV, actually there were times I could have used less. I just ordered the 500 4.0, realizing trying to make one lens do it all is just not going to work. I think if I did try and get by with 1 lens it would be the 400 2.8 but to be honest I feel the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II, 300 2.8 IS and 500 4.0 IS will get me everything I need, especially having both Canon TC's.
Time will tell, I will say the 1D IV and 300 2.8 IS lens are a great combination.

Here is a image show with the above combination.
ISO 3200 300mm 1/500th
http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/u...s/_G0C0373.jpg

Maybe you could think in other way too... what about 300 f/2.8 and buy a 7D due 1.6 crop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher C.M. Cooke

Denny, I agree that you should stick with the 300 f/2.8 for Sports and if you wish more reach the 500 f/4, I have both these lenses and they are at the top of their game.

I have no trouble using the 500 on a Monopod.

PS I tried and HATED the 400 f/2.8., great quality shocking ergonomics.

---

This is the route I went, and so far am happy with the results, will know more this winter when I get a chance to shoot birds more.