300mm lens for sports and cropperd landscape

[jackhunt]

hiya

im purchasing a new lens .... not sure what to get so am asking.
im looking at a 300mm f2.8L is, a 300mm f4L, or a 1.4X teleconverter to go on the 70-200mm f2.8L is i already own.
is there enough difrance in image quality between the 3 to warent spending so much on the 2.8 prime. i know the other let in half as much light but i can put up with that by upping the iso for sports and it doesnt matter for landscapes.
waight isnt an issue, nor is size.
it will be mounted on a canon eos 7D and a 1D mark ii so im sure i have bodys good enough for such graet lenses. any help is welcome thanks

[stever]

try the 1.4x and see if it's satisfactory for you.  i don't find that any of the Canon zooms are very happy with an extender. particularly at the edges of the image, so i really wouldn't recommend a 70-200+1.4x for landscapes

the 300 f4 is a good lens and the f2.8 great, the f4 works pretty well with the 1.4x, the f2.8 very well

for an amateur shooting sports without an assistant carrying a second camera (like me) i think a zoom will give much better results - the 7D and 70-200 (without converter) should probably be be enough 80 or 90% of the time

[Ken Bennett]

I own and use all of these solutions.

The 1.4x converted is okay on the 70-200/2.8. I carry it in my bag for when I need a little extra reach. It does cut some sharpness and some focusing speed, but it works okay for many applications (journalism, etc.)

The 300/4 is a sweet lens. Very sharp, light and compact (for a 300). On a crop body like the xxD series it provides a lot of reach, something equivalent to a 500/4 with image stabilization. That said, I don't carry it that much. Most of the time when I want the extra reach of a 300, I also need the extra stop of the 2.8 lens.

I have the older non-IS 300/2.8. The AF is astonishingly fast. This is the lens I use when I need some reach, either with a 1D body, or with a 40D when I need just a little more. It's great for sports, news, pretty much anything I would cover on a daily basis. The downside is size and weight, of course.

If you really want to shoot sports professionally, the 300/2.8 isn't quite enough --  the 400/2.8 is more useful, IMHO.

[Ed Blagden]

Generally speaking, the better the lens the less you will notice the effect of a 1.4x TC.  I use a 1.4 on my 300/4IS routinely (making it a 420/5.6) and I don't notice any real loss of sharpness.  I would imagine putting a 1.4 on your 70-200/2.8 would not do much harm, and you would end up with a pretty sharp 100-280/4 lens.

The real issue with a TC is a noticeable slowing in AF speed, and I think this would be a problem for shooting sports, especially when using AI Servo focus.  If your subject is fast moving then the lens + TC combo may not be able to keep up.

As an alternative, you might want to look at the Sigma 120-300/2.8 or the Sigma 100-300/4.  Both are very good optically, although I understand that the 2.8 is a bit slow in the AF department.  I have not used either lens, so do your own research.

The Canon 400/2.8 is certainly an option if you happen to have $7000+ lying around.  But if money is an issue then the old Canon 400/5.6 is a jolly good lens.  Very sharp, and very fast AF, not terribly expensive.  But it does not have IS, which is why I prefer the 300/4+1.4TC option.

Ed