Lens for wildlife and occasional sport??

T

Turtlelover666

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Name
Jordan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am in need of a new lens, which i will be using for mainly wildlife but also for the occasional rugby game. i was looking at the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS USM and also the Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS, what do you think will be better for my needs?

This will also be my first L lens so i want to make sure i spend my money wisely :)
 
I've not used the 300 2.8 but I have got the 100-400 L IS. The 100-400 is a great lens, has fast AF, great IQ and a great focal range. Having said that if you get a 300 2.8 you can use a 1.4 or a 2x Teleconverter giving you either 420mm at f4 or 600mm at f5.6 and so will retain AF while giving a massive reach. On your 50D you will get the equivalent of 672mm with a 1.4x and 960mm on a 2x TC after taking the crop factor into account.You are bound to lose some IQ with the TC's but someone else will have to tell you how much IQ you will lose.
Having said that about the incredible reach potential, I recently bought a Kenko 1.4x DGX Teleconverter and the 100-400 still retains AF even though it's down to f8 and gives a total of 560mm on FF or 896mm on a crop
 
Last edited:
They're very different lenses, Jordan.

First of all the 300/2.8 is roughly 3x the cost of a 100-400, or roughly 4x if you go for the new Mk II version of the 300/2.8.

The next most obvious difference is that the 100-400 is easily portable, whereas the 300 is a much bigger lump. It can be used hand-held, but most people would find it tiring for long spells and would find a monopod or tripod helpful. That's not an issue with the 100-400. Travelling with the 300 is also much more of an issue than with the 100-400.

Other than that, you're trading off the flexibility of the zoom versus stellar image quality and shallow f/2.8 depth of field on the prime lens.

Both can be used for wildlife, and both can be used for rugby - the 300/2.8 is arguably the best lens for rugby on a crop sensor camera, but at a price. but only you can decide whether the 300 is worth 3-4x the 100-400 for your particular use.
 
I think the OP must have been thinking about the 300 F4 L IS. There's a massive price difference between the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS and Canon 100-400mm
 
thanks for the advice everyone, i have narrowed it down to to lenses, the 100-400mm and the sigma 50-500mm OS. Im thinking the latter may be my best bet for wildlife and thhe occasional rugby match
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top