EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM or EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM

[expatinasia]

A very nice problem to have I know, but I have an important sporting event to shoot in April and have decided to rent a EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM or EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

As it is a fast moving sport (think soccer/football/rugby) in an open air stadium, I am very tempted to couple my 1D X with the 400 f/2.8L IS II USM especially as a Group A lens it makes the most of the 1D X's AF system, and will perform better in low light (thought the entire pitch will be very well flood lit. But (always a but isn't there!), the extra reach of the EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM could be great to have. Both are version II.

I am not new to sports, but have never owned or used one of the very big whites so I do appreciate any input from those that do/have.

Thanks.

 

[Loswr]

For field sports, the 600mm will quite possibly be too long. I'd go with the 400mm lens for your intended use. A good monopod will help a lot, too.

 

[Menace]

I'd suggest the 400 too especially with it's f2.8. Also, you may want to carry a 2nd body with a 70-200 f2.8 or similar for when action gets a bit close to your position.

Have fun

 

[expatinasia]

Thanks Menace and neuroanatomist.

That is what I was thinking. I had already ordered the 600 but the more I thought about it the more the 400 started to make sense. I will change the order following your suggestions.

Have a second body with the 70-200 f/2.8 so not to worry there.

Cheers.

 

[Fleetie]

If you're worried about reach, get the 1.4X teleconverter too, and then you'll have effectively a 560mm f/4 lens, for when you need the extra length.

 

[3kramd5]

If you're worried about reach, get the 1.4X teleconverter too, and then you'll have effectively a 560mm f/4 lens, for when you need the extra length.

Also order a sleight of hand expert to add or remove the TC on an as needed basis, quickly enough to not miss the intended action

 

[TexPhoto]

I shoot a variety of sports with a 400mm f2.8 IS, and I strongly recommend the 400. When the 400 is too short, you can crop. When the 600 is too long, you can't.

Also the 2.8 vs 4 is very helpful especially for night games.

I use both 1.4X and 2X converters, though mostly only with surfing, motorsports etc. My favorite converter is 1.6X - my 7D.

 

[runerider10]

tell me more about this sleight of hand expert and where I might find one

 

[runerider10]

i had this same dilemma when I purchased my copy of the new 400. I chose the 4 vs the 6 and glad i did. so much more versatile than being stuck with a 6

 

[viggen61]

tell me more about this sleight of hand expert and where I might find one

They include one when you buy the soon-to-be-announced 200-400 f/4L 1.4x...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13331.0

 

[Loswr]

I chose the 4 vs the 6 and glad i did. so much more versatile than being stuck with a 6

Depends on what you shoot. For me, the 'more versatile' 400 isn't long enough. The 600 II plus TCs gives me 840mm and 1200mm with AF - that's the sort of versatility that I need...

 

[RGF]

A very nice problem to have I know, but I have an important sporting event to shoot in April and have decided to rent a EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM or EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

As it is a fast moving sport (think soccer/football/rugby) in an open air stadium, I am very tempted to couple my 1D X with the 400 f/2.8L IS II USM especially as a Group A lens it makes the most of the 1D X's AF system, and will perform better in low light (thought the entire pitch will be very well flood lit. But (always a but isn't there!), the extra reach of the EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM could be great to have. Both are version II.

I am not new to sports, but have never owned or used one of the very big whites so I do appreciate any input from those that do/have.

Thanks.

Have you considered a 500? Lighten then either lens, especially the mark 2

 

[3kramd5]

tell me more about this sleight of hand expert and where I might find one

That was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[RMC33]

A very nice problem to have I know, but I have an important sporting event to shoot in April and have decided to rent a EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM or EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

As it is a fast moving sport (think soccer/football/rugby) in an open air stadium, I am very tempted to couple my 1D X with the 400 f/2.8L IS II USM especially as a Group A lens it makes the most of the 1D X's AF system, and will perform better in low light (thought the entire pitch will be very well flood lit. But (always a but isn't there!), the extra reach of the EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM could be great to have. Both are version II.

I am not new to sports, but have never owned or used one of the very big whites so I do appreciate any input from those that do/have.

Thanks.

Have you considered a 500? Lighten then either lens, especially the mark 2

Too true. I own the 400 2.8 II and have a 500 4 II on rental at the moment. I have been using the 500 every day and night with out much issue. The main reason for the swap is due to the weight (I shoot skiing and have to pack my gear) and the fact that I went from a 7D to a 1Dx so the little bit of reach is nice. I am seriously considering selling my 400 and buying a 500.

 

[dolina]

I've shot American football and and futbol and 400's the choice lens for the long side. 600 can be a tad too cramp.

 

[jasonsim]

That's a pretty big field (for soccer) but I think the 400mm f/2.8L II is going to be your best option. I think you might find 600mm too long. You probably want to have a second body with a 70-200mm attached also.

The choice, 400mm or 600mm, depends on where you will be in relation to the athletes. If on the side lines, I think 400mm is enough. You can crop some and, if you have one, use a 1.4x extender on the 400mm. That will give you 560mm f/4. Not shabby and on a 1Dx should still AF very fast.

Kind regards,
Jason Simmons

 

[expatinasia]

Thank you everyone.

I have decided to go with the 400 ii f/2.8L, and as someone mentioned I could always stick my 1.4x iii on that if I do need the extra reach.

I must say I am very excited about finally trying one of the big whites. The 70-200 f/2.8 ii is a great lens, but I have worked next to those big lenses for years, and have seen the outstanding results they produce when the guys are working on the images post-match.

The IS Mode 3 is also something I am really looking forward to experiencing.

I am sure it will be hard to give back once I am done, but then I just have to look at the price tag to realise it just is not a viable option right now. Time to start saving me thinks. ;-)

 

[TexPhoto]

Cool! I have the 1.4X III and have to say my 400 seems as sharp with it as it does without.

Are you going to use a monopod or tripod? For sideline sports like football you generally can't use a tripod. Players could be injured by it. A monopod is far less dangerous.

 

[expatinasia]

Cool! I have the 1.4X III and have to say my 400 seems as sharp with it as it does without.

Are you going to use a monopod or tripod? For sideline sports like football you generally can't use a tripod. Players could be injured by it. A monopod is far less dangerous.

I would only use a monopod for sports. A tripod is fine for portraits or landscapes, where your subjects do not move, but for sports - when space is also often limited due to the number of other media - then a monopod is the only option.

 

[Menace]

Cool! I have the 1.4X III and have to say my 400 seems as sharp with it as it does without.

Are you going to use a monopod or tripod? For sideline sports like football you generally can't use a tripod. Players could be injured by it. A monopod is far less dangerous.

I would only use a monopod for sports. A tripod is fine for portraits or landscapes, where your subjects do not move, but for sports - when space is also often limited due to the number of other media - then a monopod is the only option.

+1

Monopod is your only option really - a nice carbon fibre one will be light and strong.