Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?

[Roger Jones]

I like the 300 f4. I use it a lot for events, stage and concert stuff often with the 1.4 extender. Its not the 2.8 but its not bad.

http://bit.ly/1dYnjlo
http://bit.ly/KOjioN
http://bit.ly/KOjioN

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi All,

I just wanted to get some opinions on using a Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?

I have a Canon 5d mk III and was wondering if this is a good combination? On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D. I know there is a a possible replacement coming out soon but its not my primary photography interest and I've heard/experinced so many good things about the 7D. I might be a little older bit its still holds it ground.

Please post your thoughts or pictures using this lens. There aren't that many reviews or videos that give deep insight on this lens? There is a Digital-Rev video but its not that helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Yeah it can be quite good for sports (of course it depends, if you are talking indoor basketball then maybe it's not the best place to start).

For field sports, I preferred it to the bare 70-200. It's actually easy to move around and stop on a dime than it's big 300 2.8 brother. I liked it a lot more than 70-200 2.8 non-IS + 1.4x TC combo.

Here are a few shots from the 300 f/4 non-IS from the short while I had one between using 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 IS non-L alone and a 300 2.8 IS sometimes with TC, a few are from among the first sports I ever shot:

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.

Why? Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII. The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.

For for more reach.

Although, granted, for soccer/football I don't think the 7D AF is maybe good enough to give up the 5D3 even with the extra reach.

For surfing I think the 7D definitely has AF good enough to be worth the extra reach though. Same for birds sitting around and moving about a bit (where it almost seems to do better anyway).

The 7D2 though might well use 5D3 AF or even better.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

The 'reach benefit' is mostly an illusion. It's a 'crop factor' not a 'magnification factor'. A 300mm lens doesn't become 480mm on APS-C, you're just cropping away the outer part of the frame.

A 'reach benefit' for a 7D over a 5DIII only exists if you need more than 8.6 MP for your desired output. If 8.6 MP is sufficient (up to 16x24" / A2 prints), then the 5DIII image cropped to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will give you equivalent IQ at up to around ISO 800 (on the 7D), and progressively better IQ as ISO increases from there (at some point, probably ISO 3200 but certainly ISO 6400, the 7D's noise is so bad that an up-res'd 5DIII image would be better even if you do need all 18 MP).

Some might also cite the 2 extra fps as an advantage, and it is one in theory…but in practice, I believe the superior AF performance of the 5DIII will yield a higher overall keeper rate despite the lower fps.

Lots of times 300mm on a 5D3 won't fill up the central 8MP for soccer or football or baseball though. It's not too bad though. It's nicer using the 300mm on a 5D2/5D3 than using it on an old 8-10MP APS-C for sure though, since you get the same-nearly the same reach plus you can shoot the players much closer in thanks to the much wider FOV.

yeah for soccer and football I think you are right about the AF vs fps thing, for surfing though I don't think so

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D.

Why? Hopefully only as a backup to your 5DIII. The only reason I can see to choose a 7D over a 5DIII is if the latter is broken.

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

Yes to both. Reach is also another reason. I like to keep that 300mm f/4 at f/4 and not have to use a 1.4 extender

My experience was that the 300 f/4 non-IS + 1.4x TC AF kinda struggled for sports (although I only ever used that combination on xxD, then again the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC AF better, at least with 40D/50D that was still a little rough with the old 20D), although the image quality was fine for birds sitting around.

The 300 f/4 IS has a different AF system and different optical system than the one I used though.

 

[Phil L]

Never done any sports photography but use a 7D with a 300mm f/4 plus the Extender EF 1.4x III quite frequently. I like the combination.

Terrific shot! I also am very happy with a 300 f4 and a 1.4 on a 7D for birds and coincidently I shot some white pelicans and a bald eagle this afternoon using that combo.

More of the white pelican series in today's post:
http://phillanoue.com/2014/01/23/move-over-gang-im-coming-in/

 

[Badger]

I've been using an f/4 lens for indoor sports on a 6D. I would not recommend it :-( Outdoors, no problems.

 

[wickidwombat]

why waste money on a 7D a new 70D kicks its ass in almost every respect and has added benefits of a flippy screen and wifi which the 5Dmk3 do not have, so as a second body to the 5Dmk3 i think the 70D would be a better choice...

I have the 300f4L IS i got it on ebay for $700 so a nice bargain the IS is a little clunky but works fine even though its the older design it is noisy. Optically the lens is great and its a wonderfully well balanced lens on a 5Dmk3 too very very comfortable to shoot with

I use it often with the kenko 1.4 DGX300 TC or even with the canon 2x mk3 TC stopped down to f11 images are quite decent with this combo for 600mm...

 

[gshocked]

Hi All,

I just wanted to get some opinions on using a Canon 300mm f4 L lens for sports photography?

I have a Canon 5d mk III and was wondering if this is a good combination? On the side I am saving up for a Canon 7D. I know there is a a possible replacement coming out soon but its not my primary photography interest and I've heard/experinced so many good things about the 7D. I might be a little older bit its still holds it ground.

Please post your thoughts or pictures using this lens. There aren't that many reviews or videos that give deep insight on this lens? There is a Digital-Rev video but its not that helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Yeah it can be quite good for sports (of course it depends, if you are talking indoor basketball then maybe it's not the best place to start).

For field sports, I preferred it to the bare 70-200. It's actually easy to move around and stop on a dime than it's big 300 2.8 brother. I liked it a lot more than 70-200 2.8 non-IS + 1.4x TC combo.

Here are a few shots from the 300 f/4 non-IS from the short while I had one between using 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 IS non-L alone and a 300 2.8 IS sometimes with TC, a few are from among the first sports I ever shot:

These Images look Great!.

In regards to the types of sport, it would be mainly outdoors. I do have a 70-200 f2.8 IS and someone did suggest to me that I should just buy a 1.4x tele-converter but I don't want to loose image quality.
Am I correct in thinking this?

Thanks,

 

[gshocked]

I don't do sports photography but I was chasing some butterflies around the desert for a while and took these shots with my 5dmarkIII with a 300mmf/4 with a 2x attached...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aswah/sets/72157637811453243/

These images look amazing!

 

[dude]

The only time that lens will work on a football field is on sunny days and very well lit fields at night.

During the day, at a college (SEC) football game, I did use my 70-200 ii IS 2.8 with a 1.4iii TC. No problems. Bump the ISO up to 400 or 800 and get great photos. On the 7D, same goes for it. During the day it is great.

Turn off the lights and things go south fast. I now have a 300mm ii 2.8 which is an absolute necessity in my area for football at night.

 

[TheJock]

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480

I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

The 'reach benefit' is mostly an illusion. It's a 'crop factor' not a 'magnification factor'. A 300mm lens doesn't become 480mm on APS-C, you're just cropping away the outer part of the frame.

A 'reach benefit' for a 7D over a 5DIII only exists if you need more than 8.6 MP for your desired output. If 8.6 MP is sufficient (up to 16x24" / A2 prints), then the 5DIII image cropped to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will give you equivalent IQ at up to around ISO 800 (on the 7D), and progressively better IQ as ISO increases from there (at some point, probably ISO 3200 but certainly ISO 6400, the 7D's noise is so bad that an up-res'd 5DIII image would be better even if you do need all 18 MP).

Some might also cite the 2 extra fps as an advantage, and it is one in theory…but in practice, I believe the superior AF performance of the 5DIII will yield a higher overall keeper rate despite the lower fps.

I would like to ask a quick question on the FF 5DIII compared to the 7D as mentioned here on this thread, I’m about to buy a 70D so what’s the general consensus on IQ between cropping a FF image from a 5DIII to full size image from the crop sensor of the 70D? Is there better IQ than the 7D?
P.S. I can't afford a 5DIII :-\

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Reach is another... So the 300 becomes a 480
I still like the 5DIII but some like the crop sensor for length

The 'reach benefit' is mostly an illusion. It's a 'crop factor' not a 'magnification factor'. A 300mm lens doesn't become 480mm on APS-C, you're just cropping away the outer part of the frame.
A 'reach benefit' for a 7D over a 5DIII only exists if you need more than 8.6 MP for your desired output. If 8.6 MP is sufficient (up to 16x24" / A2 prints), then the 5DIII image cropped to the FoV of the APS-C sensor will give you equivalent IQ at up to around ISO 800 (on the 7D), and progressively better IQ as ISO increases from there (at some point, probably ISO 3200 but certainly ISO 6400, the 7D's noise is so bad that an up-res'd 5DIII image would be better even if you do need all 18 MP).
Some might also cite the 2 extra fps as an advantage, and it is one in theory…but in practice, I believe the superior AF performance of the 5DIII will yield a higher overall keeper rate despite the lower fps.

I would like to ask a quick question on the FF 5DIII compared to the 7D as mentioned here on this thread, I’m about to buy a 70D so what’s the general consensus on IQ between cropping a FF image from a 5DIII to full size image from the crop sensor of the 70D? Is there better IQ than the 7D?
P.S. I can't afford a 5DIII :-\

There was a slight improvement in image quality 70D, over 7D. Ironically, at ISO 100 is perceived much better tonal gradation as the blue sky, which is ugly in 7D. ISO 1600 in the amount of noise is the same, but the quality of the grain is better in 70D. If you can not afford 5D mark iii, currently 70D is the best choice. However, if you really need to shoot at ISO 6400, it is recommended to save a little more, and in the future buy 5D mark iii, or maybe 5D mark iv.

 

[TheJock]

If you can not afford 5D mark iii, currently 70D is the best choice. However, if you really need to shoot at ISO 6400, it is recommended to save a little more, and in the future buy 5D mark iii, or maybe 5D mark iv.

Thank you
I intend on keeping a crop body for sports and the like, maybe I'll buy a 5DIII one day, but at this moment a crop suits my style and budget better, I just wanted to know if I was making the right choice of body considering the rave reviews of the 7D, but the 70D looks like the one for me 8)