Zoom versus f

<p>Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - $1800<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544676-USA/Canon__70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html</p>

<p>Canon Telephoto EF 200mm f/2L IS USM - $4,800<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html#specifications</p>

<p>I have been using a 7-300mm zoom. I have never shot with a fixed lens.<br>

What is your opinion on using a zoom versus a fixed?<br>

In this case, I assume the price difference is due to the difference between f/2.8 and f/2. However, I always hear photographers say you need 2.8. There isn't too much mention of using anything lower.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>"Lower" f-stop numbers mean a <em>wider</em> aperture, which means the lens is gather more light. When you here people recommending f/2.8, they mean nothing <em>slower</em> than that. Faster is always good! But, as you see, it's also stupifyingly expensive - and long, fast lenses also get large and heavy, very quickly.</p>

<p>If you are willing to do without the 70-part, look at the 200mm f2.8L ($800 range). I use mine for football/soccer and somewhat for basketball. If I had the cash, I'd get the 70-200 2.8L without the IS, but that is me.</p>

<p>I use Nikons 70-200/2.8 VR and the fat 200/2.0 VR for sports and nearly always choose the fixed 200 - outdoors most of the time together with a 1.4x-teleconverter. With the prime I miss some (close) shots I could have captured with the zoom but counting in all aspects (especially handling and image-quality) I prefer the fat 200 by a wide margin. I use the zoom when I shoot sports in good light and when the action will happen close to me.<br>

Good alternatives to Canons 70-200/2.8 IS are the 300/4 or the 200/2.8 for outdoor-sports and the 135/2.0 for indoor-sports.<br>

Hope this helps and please excuse my english, georg.</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

Nathan, why would you not want the IS?<br>

Aren't you losing flexibility by using a fixed lens?<br>

I am considering getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, but I just want to make sure I consider my options.</p>

Yes, you lose flexibility when you use a prime instead of a zoom. You also lose (for the same aperture) a lot of weight, and often a lot of cost.

 

As pointed out, the 200mm f2.8 is about half the cost and weight of the 70-200mm f2.8 (not to mention the IS version). The 200mm f2.0 is a lot more expensive, and probably as heavy, but lets in twice as much light.

 

Personally, I use the 135mm f2.0 for sports, (on my crop body, that gives the same field of view as the 200mm on a FF body), and I have never missed the zoom option. Imagine the shot first, and make sure you're in the right spot to take it.

<p><strong ><em >"why would you not want the IS?"</em></strong><br>

<br>

I can't answer for Nathan, but I have the EF70 to 200F2.8L and use it almost exclusively for sport. The IS is not required by me, because I am shooting at a shutter fast enough to freeze the subject action, which also is faster than that required to avoid camera shake. This particular lens is not overly long - even on an APS-C body - and I usually require above 1/320s - which I can easily pull at FL = 200mm – and at that Tv I usually use a monopod. The only time I wanted IS for my lens was when I covered some Snowboarding events (outside of the norm for me) and I borrowed an IS version for that job: specifically to use the IS panning function - which is very good. <br>

<br>

I suggest you look two aspects: <br>

<br>

1. Will you use the lens for any other purpose other than sport?<br>

2. Do you cover sports where panning IS mode would be beneficial?<br>

<br>

If "yes" to either then consider the IS version. <br>

<br />WW</p>

<p > </p>