# Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM



## JSPhotographyLLC (Aug 27, 2012)

I am looking for an honest evaluation of this lens. There is a strong possibility that I might purchase it for my sports photography. The one thing that concerns me is shooting a high school football game after the sun goes down. I use a 7D if that makes a difference to the review.


----------



## Overread (Aug 27, 2012)

It's a high quality lens and not too expensive (compared to many other longer lenses) which makes it a very popular choice for many. The light issue after the sun goes down is going to be a problem though. In an ideal world you'd want a 5DMIII (For both the high ISO capabilities and the fast AF) combined with a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens. Those are sadly not cheap options and shooting low light long distance action photography is, sadly, one of the areas where you can't easily skimp on the costs. 

The only other option you might consider is a used Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Whilst you lose the IS of the 300mm f4 and the zoom is heavier, you will gain an extra stop of light to work with. Handholding at 300mm shouldn't be too much of a problem since you'll need 1/300sec or faster at least to get clear action photos. That will push the budget up sadly, if you want improved performance over that the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS would be the next setup up - most certainly not cheap, but giving you better performance and the OS (like IS). 

After that you're onto second hand Canon 300mm f2.8 IS L or the amazingly expensive 300mm f2.8 IS L MII. 


Consider how your finances are now and how they will gain - saving for the top end gear is a worthy goal, but you've also got to consider your shorter term goals as well. No point waiting years to save for a lens and not being able to shoot what you need to.


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 27, 2012)

I honestly think a 70-200 f/2.8 is enough on a crop body for a football game. I shot a few college games from the sideline with that combo, and I got very good results.  Here's a set, here's a set (from the stands at night), and here's another set.


----------



## Hardrock (Aug 27, 2012)

The lens is a fantastic lens! I use it with a kenko 1.4x all the time and it produces very sharp images. The macro side of it is also very nice and creates a nice blurred background.  Although I do see myself in the future looking for a 300 f2.8.  Mostly for low light which is really only one stop but that can really help if your at 1/200 and want to be at 1/400. The 2.8 version is supposed to also work really well with a 2x. But for the money you can't go wrong. I also compared it to the 100-400 IS L and preferred the 300f4 L. Oh and I also use it with the 7D.  I have quite a few bird images with the 300 f4 at TreyHarrison.zenfolio.com in the nature section if you want to check them out.


----------



## JSPhotographyLLC (Aug 27, 2012)

Well I will be using a monopod for sports so IS is a mute point really. Even at only two pounds hand holding is going to be very taxing for long periods. This and the Canon 400mm f/5.6 are the only two telephoto lenses even remotely in my budget. I know they f/5.6 is entirely too slow for a night game so thats off the list. And renting the bigger, better lenses really aren't a viable option either as they can run $200 or more for a weekend and if I only get paid for one or two games then I barely break even, let alone make any profit. I had been looking and planning to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II which would be more than enough for most sports, but for soccer, football, and aspects of baseball it will fall short. Now for soccer and baseball I know the f/4 would be alright because they are largely played in daylight. Its the football games that is making me crazy. I don't want to leave it out because that is what parents and kids want covered the most. But finding a reasonably priced lens that gives me both the light and length that I need is maddening. I've thought about using a 1.4 tele-extender on the 200 but then I am right back at the f/4L.


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 27, 2012)

You don't need IS for sports. If you're shooting football, you are going to want to be shooting at least at 1/500sec to freeze action.  The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is a great deal in your budget.


----------



## JSPhotographyLLC (Aug 27, 2012)

IMG_9120enhanced | Flickr - Photo Sharing! you shot this from the stands with a 70-200mm f/2.8?

Oh sorry just noticed you said sidelines not stands. Great shots though.


----------



## JSPhotographyLLC (Aug 27, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> You don't need IS for sports. If you're shooting football, you are going to want to be shooting at least at 1/500sec to freeze action.  The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is a great deal in your budget.



I know but I have only found the mark ii in IS, believe me I would love to save the money.


----------



## TheBiles (Aug 27, 2012)

JSPhotographyLLC said:


> IMG_9120enhanced | Flickr - Photo Sharing! you shot this from the stands with a 70-200mm f/2.8?
> 
> Oh sorry just noticed you said sidelines not stands. Great shots though.



That's was also during warm-ups, so he was like 30 feet from me. 

Sent from my Nexus 7


----------

