Canon super tele choices!!!

[bdunbar79]

I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

I would go for the Ver. II as anyone would if I have the budget, but as I mention in my post, I do not have enough funds to buy them, not everyone can afford these lenses if you ask me so yea, sadly I have to pass them

I got great shape 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS together for $9500.  If I had gone two of the new version 2's that would have been almost $19,000, about double the price.  These lenses if taken care of are not going to have problems. 

[Richard Lane]

I do use the Gitzo 3541L monopod with a Acratech ballhead if I need to. How do you think the AF on the 300mm IS Ver with the 1.4xTC compared to the bare lens itself? I have laid my hands on the 400 IS ver I a few times and I have to say that's a heavy chunk of lens, it will be impossible for me to handhold.

I honestly don't notice that much of a difference in AF speed, I guess that's because 50% of very-very fast is still very fast.  There is a slight hit in IQ, but that lens is so sharp, that it's still very good and I hate to compromise and I'm pretty picky.

I actually went to the Camera Shop to buy the 400mm f/2.8L IS and the pro sports photographer that worked there, talked me into the 300mm f/2.8L IS.  I'm using it with the 1D MKIV.  The 400mm is the ultimate field sports lens, however it's pretty long for indoor sports, and it's a real beast. The 300mm with or without the 1.4X, is the good all-arounder for baseball, basketball, volleyball, hockey, motor-sports, cycling, Air Shows, and I even use it for Surfing with the 1.4X and some mild cropping.  I also use it for Birds in flight and it's not that bad to travel with it. 

If you are going to be a professional sports photographer and you asked me what's the best lens for Football, Soccer, and Lacrosse, then I would say the 400mm.  If you asked me what's the better all-around lens for many different sports, then I would say the 300mm. 

It's great that you have a monopod, but ballheads and monopods are like drinking and driving, they just don't mix.  You can just screw the lens onto the monopod.  If you would like to use it for BIF, then an RRS Monopod Head with quick release is great!

Rich

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

They most certainly service the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses.  I just had it done.  If you can get a good deal on good shape used ones, you can also get both for less than the version II 400mm lens.

You are right, I intended to refer to the original NON-IS lenses that the OP had in his poll.  They are not serviced any longer, while the IS version 1 lenses are and will be serviced for many years to come..
Sorry for the error.

[bdunbar79]

Nope, I gotcha.  I wasn't thinking about the previous versions either.  You are right, there are a series prior to the IS versions.  I couldn't imagine shooting football with a 400mm with no IS, haha

[zrz2005101]

I have never tried the older versions but I heard that they are not much worse. I have them listed as a cheap alternative to both the Ver I and Ver. II IS lenses.

[IIIHobbs]

I very recently picked up a used 300mm f2.8 IS and have enjoyed it greatly. Having used the 300mm f4 for a season of Lacrosse, I was very pleased with the results, but the f2.8 is noticeably quicker and sharper. I have only used the lens hand held and while noticeably heavier than the f4, it is not at all difficult to use this way.

I added a used 1.4x II (as some have suggested) and love the resulting 420mm f4. Some contrast is lost, but still very sharp, very fast 400mm.

For what you are describing and what bodies you are using, I feel this is the best choice.

[zrz2005101]

I very recently picked up a used 300mm f2.8 IS and have enjoyed it greatly. Having used the 300mm f4 for a season of Lacrosse, I was very pleased with the results, but the f2.8 is noticeably quicker and sharper. I have only used the lens hand held and while noticeably heavier than the f4, it is not at all difficult to use this way.

I added a used 1.4x II (as some have suggested) and love the resulting 420mm f4. Some contrast is lost, but still very sharp, very fast 400mm.

For what you are describing and what bodies you are using, I feel this is the best choice.

Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks

[IIIHobbs]

Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks

I have only used it handheld. I use a OP/TECH Super Classic strap attached to the lens body and rest as needed. During the action it is very easy to track and capture images without feeling tired. With field sports you are not holding the camera lens still, trying not to move or shake. Most of the shots are tracking, following the action and firing off as needed. Whenever the whistle blows, I take the opportunity to rest.

My monopod head is too lightweight for the 300 f2.8. It worked fine for my 300 f4 IS and my 780-200 f2.8 IS, but I do not trust the 300 f2.8 on it.