joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Now that I know you shoot Canon suggest a 400mm 5.6. Best tele for the money. Wish Nikon made one.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Yes, and hell yes! Entirely different lenses, great lenses both.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

You guys are great.
at that focal length does the difference between the 2.8 and 4 or 5.6 make that big of a difference. I am guessing the answer is "your kidding right?"
I want to use it mostly for football, but also birds and other critters.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

You will be surprised at how much this lens can be used. It easily does everything you have mentioned, and much more. Mine shoots hummers with a 2x TC on my deck with great results. In summer it is almost a "walk-around" lens as I use it so often. At 5+ lbs. it is not too heavy to carry. Plan on spending lots of time with this lens, the results will thrill you. Have fun.

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

If you use Nikon it might be worth considering the 300m F4 which should be due soon . Much smaller, lighter and cheap than the 2.8

Col J

I can not believe all the Nic people who want to join in to a Canon question with their 2 cents worth?
Do they have a problem or just trying to boost their own self worth not being part of the Canon shooters people?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

My first 300 was a used Minolta 300 2.8 for my Sony A77, got it for 900.00 and it was in great condition, did not have the focus lock buttons but was, is, super sharp and very fast. Have it on a black rapid attached to the lens collar which is upturned to the top position. Not extremely heavy and easy to hold. Yes, focuses fast.
My other 300 2.8 VR II, is the Nikon, it is also very fast but a little bit heavier than the Minolta, I like the color orientation of the Minolta, very rich colors, if I put the Nikon on Vivid, I get a similar result. Please do not go cheap on a 300 2.8, their are enough great deals on used to make it within your budget.

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

Who? is Canon shooters PEOPLE?

Col J

People who use Canon cameras but still respect others who choose other brands for one reason or another.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

Absolutely I would do it again. I shoot canon and their 300 f2.8 is a real jewel. extremely fast focus, razor sharp. Just the best. I hear that the nikon is about the same. I did buy mine grey market from Adorama and saved about 500 bucks. Afterall, how often does anyone send a lens in for service.

the weight is no issue, my wife and I both handhold it and we are wellinto our medicare years. I think this lens keeps it's value, so while it is a big investment, you will get most of it back if you sell. But you will never let it go while you still do photography. When you get it be sure that you microfocus it to get the best out of it with your camera. Good luck

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Of course people have done this! and it's a very popular setup because of how fast this lens is. You can use any teleconverter you like with this lens and still get great performance from it.

O2Ra

I'm not a long lens expert by no means but.... I have the Nikon 300 f/4 on a d7000 crop body. At 10 to 15 yards away from a small bird it turns the background into a creamy blur. You can't really get much more out of focus. It renders great out of focus balls of light bokeh. Ive heard Canon has an awesome 300f4 also. But what I'm getting at a 400 f5.6 you should still get great bokeh just not the low light capabilities of a 2.8. But a good ff body should give you pretty clean pics up to iso 3200. I suggest you get a Nikon d750 with a 300 f/4 and a couple tc's from Nikon . Still less money than the 400. Lol Just kidding on the last part.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Upfront: I'm a Nikon guy, but I don't think that matters to my response. Like SS, I specialize in action sports and have all the lenses you mention in their Nikon versions. The 70-200 is a wonderful lens, in both the Canon and Nikon versions. When you go up from that, you have an F4 as well as an F2.8 version at 300 as well as some choices at 400. As you rise to the 400/2.8 level, the price grows quickly as the new Nikon version is a cool $ 12k! In between there are some brands such as Sigma as well as a host of used choices. As I said, I have both the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 Nikon versions, not the latest versions, but with the built-in focus motors but without VR, which would really not be that useful to me. Although you can handhold these lenses, it's pretty uncomfortable and harder as I get older! As a sports guy, both of these are normally used on a monopod. Also, as SS pointed out, unless you are stinking rich, these lenses are much more than you need to photograph the grandson. In my case, I use both of these lenses regularly as they are pretty much necessary for the work that I do. I suppose that's why I think a 70-200/2.8 VRII is a featherweight! You might want to check out the Sigma 150-600 Sport ($ 2000) or the Sigma Contemporary or Tamron version ($1100) for what you want. Not as good as the more expensive glass (I own the Sigma Sport and have used the Tamron), but they represent great value for the money. Finally, as I'm sure SS would say, both the Canon and Nikon are superior systems. Best of luck with your choice.

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

I wonder why f/2.8 is necessary. When I got the 300, I was steady enough that with a gun-stock I could get away with f/4. Your TC-14 may kill a stop anyway and I was told to double or triple focal length. Sit down and figure out what you want to do and then get the lenses that will let you do it.

Bushymonster Loc: Oklahoma City. OK.

I'm Canon man but if I had the funds I would buy a good Nikon to compare and just to play with. My opinion, if it's worth anything is they are both great cameras.
-Bushy