A Nikon buddy inquired at his local shop about the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. They said Nikon is discontinuing this lens because it is too slow for most practical applications. The Canon 100-400 has the same apertures. So I take it the Canon lens is too slow too?I'd be using it primarily for youth sports and kids in action in general. Other consideration would be the 300/4. This is in addition to my 70-200/4L-IS.

For your application (kids playing sports) it will be fine unless you're shooting night gamesThe zoom has definite advantages over a fixed focal length in this type of shooting as kids are running toward you and away from you.The slowness comments generally refer to using this lens (and the nikon) in low light conditions such as at dawn/dusk or in the woods when shooting wildlife. In these situations you want a fast f2.8is lens such as the 300mmf2.8is. -- http://www.pbase.com/pwh

JackMwrote:A Nikon buddy inquired at his local shop about the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. They said Nikon is discontinuing this lens because it is too slow for most practical applications.There are two different kinds of slow: slow apertures and slow focusing. The 80-400 is slow as a lame dog when it comes to focusing and that has always been the main flaw in this lens in the Nikon system. The Canon 100-400 is much much faster - yet not quite as fast as the much smaller 70-200 f/4L IS. -- regards Karl Günter Wünsch Visit my gallery at http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808

i just sold the 300L and bought the 100-400L and will also keep my 70-200l f4 IS.the 100-400L is slow but not too slow imo especially when you consider it's a 4x zoom.ed rader

You mean slow to AF or slow in that the aperture of f5.6? Those are 2 different things even though related to each other.

ed raderwrote:i just sold the 300L and bought the 100-400L and will also keep my 70-200l f4 IS.I take it you like the 100-400 better?

That depends on how picky you are. I sold my 70-200 f/4L, which I bought specifically for shooting youth sports, after six months of use. The f/4 max aperture just didn't cut it IMHO. The reason it didn't cut it was that it wouldn't sufficiently blur out backgrounds in most cases (at least for my taste).The clincer was an absloute cracker of a shot in a U14 soccer match of a player making a very acrobatic move near a touchlne lined with spectators. There in the BG was a large denim-clad woman sitting spread eagle in a lawn chair, knitting a large pink afghan blanket. Let's just say the sharp details of her form rendered the shot useless. I had many more similar shots, but that was the topper, so I sold the 70-200 f/4L and paid about twice as much for the f/2.8L version and have never regretted it.But the great majority of my shooting is youth sports, so you have to take that into consideration. Your situation may vary, just know what to expect.The backgrounds at youth sporting events are often 'not pretty' and frequently have many distracting elements. Anything you can do to negate their effect on your photos is usually a plus.NO lens will be PERFECT for shooting sports. ALL have their compromises. Find the one that you can live with the best.Paul Hancockwrote:For your application (kids playing sports) it will be fine unless you're shooting night gamesThe zoom has definite advantages over a fixed focal length in this type of shooting as kids are running toward you and away from you.The slowness comments generally refer to using this lens (and the nikon) in low light conditions such as at dawn/dusk or in the woods when shooting wildlife. In these situations you want a fast f2.8is lens such as the 300mmf2.8is. -- http://www.pbase.com/pwh

it's a better wildlife lens and IQ is better @ 400mm than the 300L + 1.4 TC. the 5d is my primary camera so i'm at the long end alot.i spent the day at the zoo yesterday with just the 100-400L and to bodies -- 30d and 5d -- and the combo worked out perfect.i did like the 300L and may get it again someday because its IQ sans TC is excellent and it's a great close-up and sports lens. it's also more baggable.ed rader

I've been OK with it in bright light and light clouds. It is a challenge with moving subjects, over 250mm focal length, and moderate to heavy clouds.

Big Handswrote:The clincer was an absloute cracker of a shot in a U14 soccer match of a player making a very acrobatic move near a touchlne lined with spectators. There in the BG was a large denim-clad woman sitting spread eagle in a lawn chair, knitting a large pink afghan blanket. Let's just say the sharp details of her form rendered the shot useless. I had many more similar shots, but that was the topper, so I sold the 70-200 f/4L and paid about twice as much for the f/2.8L version and have never regretted it.Judicious use of Photoshop will easily blur out the background. Makes a looser into a winner. -- Doug Walker

Is the local shop located in any community where we would assume store staff actually are knowledgable about the inner workings of a Japan-based multinational's marketing ideas?BAK

My copy of the 100-400 (2nd) is ok if the it's bright with NO clouds. But if bright as in the sun trying to break through an overcast sky.....it's a challenge to say the least. I had those very conditions a few days ago when trying to shoot this heron. Didn't do anything to the sky in PS. Tried to make the subject presentable. In any other conditions I love this lens.

You got mixed up on Autofocousing versus aperture. Yes, both Canon 100-400L and Nikon 80-400 are f/5.6 @400mm. However, this Nikon is the much older (D) Screw-Driven lens: meaning the autofocusing is entirely depended on the motor driven camera body. If you have the powerful Nikon F6, then it should be decent. However, if you have the Nikon D50, this lens will struggle to autofocus. There is simply too much of the lens element for a small motor to grind.Where as the Canon 100-400mm L hast he Ring USM, the torque generate by this electronic motor is nearly instant and full powered. Nikon should be updated this 80-400 with an AF-S motor soon.JackMwrote:A Nikon buddy inquired at his local shop about the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. They said Nikon is discontinuing this lens because it is too slow for most practical applications. The Canon 100-400 has the same apertures. So I take it the Canon lens is too slow too?I'd be using it primarily for youth sports and kids in action in general. Other consideration would be the 300/4. This is in addition to my 70-200/4L-IS.

Not too slow IMO. It does love bright sunlight, maybe a clear blue sky with a small cloud in front of the sun is ideal.I've got some shots I like under an overcast sky. Here are some examples:Overcast, surrounded by trees on all sides, only open sky is directly above.Bird in flight, again overcast, around 6pm midsummer. AF servo, seems fast enough to track a fast medium small bird:Slightly overcast:Cloud in front of the sun, so partly cloudy:Exif info is embedded inside the images. -- Imqqmihttp://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

Great shots. That last one with the little fish flipping in the bird's mouth is one of the coolest shots I've seen on this forum.

Thanks Jack, I was really surprised I actually caught that flip (well actually the gbh did the catching ;). -- Imqqmihttp://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

JackMwrote:A Nikon buddy inquired at his local shop about the Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. They said Nikon is discontinuing this lens because it is too slow for most practical applications. The Canon 100-400 has the same apertures. So I take it the Canon lens is too slow too?What were they trying to sell him?I haven't heard anything about the Nikkor being discontinued, although pretty much everyone espects it to be upgraded at some point, largely because it is not an AF-S lens. On a pro body it's not really much of an issue, and people who complain about it the most usually don't own one.As for aperture speed, there are many lenses currently being released in that range, so I doubt that's what they would have referred to.Since the Canon does not use the same focus system, i.e. there is a motor in the lens, any complaint about the Nikkor is irrelevant for the Canon.Both are fine lenses. Tell your friend to find another dealer.Larry

I used this lens, in combination with my Canon 5D, recently at a local HS football game. The game started at 7:00 PM, and this picture was captured as the sun was going down and the lights were turned on:http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=4552024&catID=&style=&rowNumber=7&memberID=125176I think you will find the 100-400L works well for sporting events, particularly if you have a camera sensor that will give you useable images at an ISO of 1600.

Sounds like a good chance to break out photoshop.However, I'm a big fan of shooting fast glass wide open.I'm considering the 300/2.8LIS for kids sports - i'm concerned about the lack of zoom however.My son just moved into junior high level play and the larger field size has really put a hurting on my 70-200/2.8L which has been my go-to lens for years.I almost always shoot at 2.8-3.5 aperture. Just for the reasons you describe.