I've found it to be about 1 stop slower than Sunny16 would predict, probably due to shooting kids, uniforms, green grass, etc., that must be darker than 18% gray.This means that on a sunny day, f/5.6 and ISO400, as high as I like to go (at least with my 10D), I get 1/1500 shutter speed. To keep it where it's still sharp, above 250th or so (1.6x focal length, 2 stop IS, and some safety margin), I can lose about 2.5 stops of light.So for me it's good in about 2.5 stops of clouds ;).

Karl Günter Wünschwrote: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. --I have a friend with the Nikon 80-400 and D200 which I got to try out a couple of times. Oh man, I missed so many birds in flight waiting for that thing to rack into focus. My 100-400 on my 20D is at least twice as fast to focus and it's far from the fastest focussing lens in the Canon lineup. I can see why Nikon would want to retire the lens.

specially considering it's a 4x zoom. In Minolta mount I had an even slower 100-400 lens which was 4.5-6.7, but could still get good results from it. The advantage with my 5D is that I can crank up the ISO quite a bit and still get good results.Here are some images from a football match I have covered with it in less than optimal light for the most part.

ed raderwrote: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 raderWhat do you like your 70-200 f4 for ? I"m considering the IS version and I'm not quite sure what my specific reason is other than I have "general lens lust" and have heard it is one of Canon's sharpest lensses. Also I happen to like f4.0 and the internal zoom of my 17-40 L. I have no trouble hand holding that lens in less than perfect light, and with the added enhancement of IS on the longer lens, I felt it might be a nice lens for me.I have the 70-300 DO IS which I never use except on safaris, and we won't be going on another one for a couple of years. I might decide to get the 100-400 then, but I don't need or want it now. I don't haul that kind of weight around here, and since I have low vision in one eye, I don't "do birds". So for ME, the 100-400 L is a gigantic paper weight, except as a "one-purpose safari lens".Back to the subject... can you tell me how you use the 70-200 f4.0 ?carolyn -- Ranger a.k.a chammett http://www.pbase.com/chammett'elegance is simplicity'

Great lens as long as your backgrounds are clutter free.I eventually sold mine for this reason as well as it's poor low-light sports capability.

well I'm not Ed, but I have a 70-200/4L-IS and I love it. It's great for chasing kids around outdoors. Great for little-league baseball too.http://picasaweb.google.com/jmfamilyphoto/FalmouthFlyers/photo#5075528806050171506 http://i13.tinypic.com/626dj4h.jpg http://i3.tinypic.com/53ggglk.jpg

JDuBS2wrote:Great lens as long as your backgrounds are clutter free.I eventually sold mine for this reason as well as it's poor low-light sports capability.I agree with this highly, but it is seldom mentioned when consider buying a slower lens. Motion blur and noise avoidance are important. However, a slow lens can never blur the background the same way as a faster one. Panning with a slow lens is quite okay though, such as in motor sports...

Anything with a slower aperture than f/4 is too slow for even DAYTIME sports. Yes, you can shoot sports at f/5.6 in bright light, but not at any other time. There will be those who will say this is not true and even show examples, but these are the exceptions. The only thing they prove is that it ispossibleto get a shot in cloudy weather at f/5.6, but it is not likely. I am the Athletic Department photographer at a college in the northeast and I am getting rid of my 300 f/4 IS for an f/2.8 zoom (120-300) - not because of the blurred bg - because f/4 means having to use iso1600 in cloudy or rainy weather (and remember, soccer is often played in the rain).Bottom line: I would recommend the Sigma 100-300 f/4 at $1100 or the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 at $2700.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.

Recently used this lens with my new 40D photographing dogs at flyball, see: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=24756911& dogs are much faster than kids!Kind regards Stephen

I agree that the AF is fast enough, it's the aperture that's too slow for me. Looking at the exif of your (very good) pics tells me that the light was very good even if it wasn't too sunny. My main point is that when the light goes bad (and it does often enough in soccer), the minimum aperture of f/5.6 is not enough.Ianbed bugwrote:Recently used this lens with my new 40D photographing dogs at flyball, see: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=24756911& dogs are much faster than kids!Kind regards Stephen

JackMwrote:well I'm not Ed, but I have a 70-200/4L-IS and I love it. It's great for chasing kids around outdoors. Great for little-league baseball too.http://picasaweb.google.com/jmfamilyphoto/FalmouthFlyers/photo#5075528806050171506 http://i13.tinypic.com/626dj4h.jpg http://i3.tinypic.com/53ggglk.jpg

Also, I can easily get a ton of keepers from a HS match using only the 70-200 f/2.8L. NO lens covers the entire pitch perfectly, you'll need two for that.Just shoot the action that comes to you. I get over 1,000 shot per match like this.Here's one match's worth. How many more do you need?http://imageevent.com/johansen01/westranchvarsity0607/wrhs20207vscanyonppriorwrote: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.

I used it with my 30D and then I bought the 1D Mark III.I notice a big difference in focus speed with the Mark III. I can also use the 1.4 Extender II with the Mark III and it will still autofocus fast with it. Not so with the 30D.Have a look at some of my soccer images. The only thing that keeps me from more action shots is ME!Also with the 1.4 Extender II I am at f8.0, so I have to increase the ISO to get a faster shutter speed, so check the exif info on the images too.http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/saddleback_college_soccer_2007&page=allI'm just starting on this gallery. More pics to add to both, so check back if you like.http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/fall_soccerI will say that I am VERY glad I have this lens. It's VERY versatile! -- DeeDee G. http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root

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.For soccer and kids in action you'd be fine. Lots of contrast for the AF to lock onto quickly.If contrast is not the best then this lens can be slower to AF, especially if the lens is not already at the desired focal length (your lens is at 200mm but your subject is at 400mm). This is where the delimiter switch comes in handy. I've had more than a few frustrating occasions trying to lock onto some birds in flight. I'd suddenly see a Black-Crowned Night Heron coming in from the right side. I point my lens at it and the AF struggles before locking on. The fact the subject is moving didn't help. Soccer should be fine.Photographed a fast moving American Kestrel earlier this summer with 100-400L IS and 400 5.6L. The 400 5.6L locks AF quicker on this fast flier.Late today I was shooting a Great Egret far away against a blue sky. AF hiccuped a bit before it locked on. White bird against light blue sky far away is not the ideal subject for fast AF lock anyway. Soccer should be fine.Despite these minor (to me once you know hwo to work around them) nits the 100-400L IS is a fine lens and one of my most used.

In general I agree, but with a pic as you describe it could fix the problem with a fake DOF change.As to your pics, they are outstanding. How much are you cropping? Can you describe where you generally stand to take soccer pics and any other tips you have?I'd surely like to avoid shelling out $4000 if I don't have to, and if I could get pictures like yours out of my 70-200 I'd be thrilled.

c.hammettwrote:Do you ever use it in less than wonderful light ?I mostly use it outdoors since it's pretty long for indoor use and I have a 17-55/2.8IS for that. But here's one shot indoors with low light. The camera actually amplified the light in this exposure, it was a dimmer scene than it looks here:1/20, f/4, ISO800

-Jack

JackMwrote:c.hammettwrote:Do you ever use it in less than wonderful light ?I mostly use it outdoors since it's pretty long for indoor use and I have a 17-55/2.8IS for that. But here's one shot indoors with low light. The camera actually amplified the light in this exposure, it was a dimmer scene than it looks here:1/20, f/4, ISO800

I'm on my second copy of the lens and as long as I own Canon, it will never leave again. Just a wonderful lens, period. No, not for nighttime highschool football, but then, even my 7-2/2.8 is barely adequate for that use. As far as background blur goes, well, the distance to the subject is most likely going to be greater than subject to background and in those circumstances, most any lens will be bokeh-challenged. In other words - no, it's not too slow. -- 30D and Canon L's'What do you mean they blew up the Death Star?! What the h*ll is an Aluminum Falcon??!!' - Emperor Palpatine (Robot Chicken Star Wars parody)