70-200 f/2.8 IS

I am in search of a telephoto lens for my 40D, primarily for indoor and outdoor

sports. I had my mind set on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but now, I'm having second

thoughts. I realize that f/2.8 is a must, and IS makes it a much more versatile

lens.

 

But after reading the reviews and looking at the ISO 12233 crops on

www.the-digital-pictures.com, I'm not so sure anymore. At 200mm, f/5.6, it

seems to be less sharp than the 100-400 at 400mm, f/5.6, even though the 100-400

has a reputation of being almost unacceptably soft wide open at the long end.

 

I'm used to the sharpness and contrast my 24-70 delivers, which I use for indoor

basketball. The ISO 12233 crops from the 70-200 f/4 IS show the same sharpness

and contrast typical with my 24-70, while the crops from the f/2.8 IS show a

significant reduction of sharpness, contrast and noticeable increase of CA.

 

I'm wondering now if a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 200 2.8 would give me better IQ

without sacrificing (too much) speed. In the fall, I'm planning to shoot some

football. The f/4 zoom would work well until, of course, the sun goes down, or

at night and indoor games. Thanks for your thoughts.

I currently own the 70-200 f/4IS and have previously owned the 2.8IS version and also the 200 2.8 at one time or another. A couple of months ago I would have said that if you want the best IQ of the bunch, get the 200 prime. But after living with the f/4IS I'm not so sure, it's at least as sharp as the prime IMO and better than the 2.8 IS. I would get the f/4IS, it's smaller and lighter than the 2.8 zoom, which is a real load to carry around,and IQ, I think, is the best of the bunch. If you really need the faster aperture, the 70-200 2.8 certainly isn't anything to sneeze at. If you just want it for sports, you don't even need the IS, if you want more of an all around lens in that FL, the IS is mighty nice. But, if you can afford both lenses, my choice would be the 70-200 f/4IS and the 200 prime. Good luck.

If you are shooting sport then performance at f/5.6 is almost irrelevant: only performance at f/2.8 (or maybe f/4 if you haven't a high enough shutter speed at 100 ISO in bright sunshine on a beach or snow) should count as these are the apertures you should be using for almost all your shots. In anything but the best light you will shoot wide open to maximise shutter speed, cranking up ISO as it gets darker. The side benefit is better background blur and more "pop" for the in focus subject player. Do not imagine that f/4 is adequate for sport, especially at lower light levels: indeed, that could have you adding a fast (= f/2 or faster) prime or three to your kit.

With 40D I shoot high school basketball w/out flash (usually), ISO 3200, 1/250 @ f2.8. Use either 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 24-70 f2/8. Less glass would not do. I also have the 100-400 for baseball and soccer but find that I like the sharpness and performance of the 70-200. If I HAD to dump all lenses except one it would be the one I keep (again, mostly HS sports.)

I know performance at f/5.6 is irrelevant. I was just making the point that even stopped down to f/5.6, the 2.8 IS still does not catch up.

 

Paul, I'm glad D-1 gyms are much brighter than that - I'm able to go 1/500, 2.8, ISO 1600. As for your 2.8 IS, how does it compare to your 24-70?

70-200 f/2.8 L IS can deliver some reasonable pop at 2.8.<div></div>

Consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8: a good copy rivals the Canon 300 f/2.8 L as several owners testify at Fredmiranda:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Steve: It was the fact that the f/4 IS is almost indistinguishable from the 85/100/135/200 primes at f/4 that put me in this dilemma to begin with. Stopping the f/2.8 IS down to f/4 (if I plenty of light to play with) does improve it, but it still does not catch up to the f/4 IS wide open.

 

Mark: Thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't considered 3rd party lenses. The Sigma definitely is an impressive beast, but it might be a little long on a crop body, as well as a bit heavy for my budget. I don't just shoot sports - and the Sigma would have limited applications for me outside of sports.

 

Savas: I definitely know the lens has lots of pop. I know that it is at least a very good lens. But for its price, I would expect it to be a great lens. Can you post a few unprocessed 100% crops (especially at 200mm, where it is supposedly at its weakest)?

I think the comparison is not so fair: One is at the end of its range (200mm of 70mm-200mm.) The other is near the mid-range of the lens (100mm-400mm.) The one at the extreme range of a lens tends to be softer. I could be wrong!

If the 70-200 f/2.8 L were really not sharp enough for your basketball shots, I wonder

why so many other people use it? And, in my view, lens sharpness may not be the

biggest issue anyway for shooting sports like this. Your camera is going to be in

motion as is your subject so you are going to be dealing with less than perfect

sharpness no matter what lens you use.

 

It is quite possible to obsess too much over small differences in 100% magnification

test shots. First, these are generally not even going to visible in your photos at the

sizes you will likely reproduce them. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, there are

other factors working agains maximum sharpness already in your cases - you would

not get maximum sharpness even if you used the world's sharpest lens.

 

Dan

Consider the Tokina 50-135 F2.8. Much small and lighter than the 70-220F2.8L IS. I almost traded my Tokina 50-135 and my Canon 200mm F2.8L and cash for a 70-200 F2.6L IS. I had a chance to evaluate the 70-200 for over a week. It is a great lens, but the more I used it the more I began to appreciate the Tokina. I am glad I made the decision to keep my Tokina and the 300 F2.8 Canon.

 

I use these lenses for High School wrestling and I am very happy with the Tonkina.

 

Ed

�Savas: I definitely know the lens has lots of pop. I know that it is at least a very

good lens. But for its price, I would expect it to be a great lens. Can you post a few

unprocessed 100% crops (especially at 200mm, where it is supposedly at its

weakest�

 

Lens does a decent image and you denigrate it as a non-great lens and ask for

unprocessed crops at the supposed weakest - for what reason? What constitutes a

great lens?

 

Here is a recent photo that I bothered taking the time to do a crop from.

Here's another:

Original image:

Do you need zoom? Do you need 2.8? ("I realize that f/2.8 is a must,")...if you answer yes to these then you're pretty much there aren't you?

 

I'll just say as others have noted, there are times when f/4 won't cut it and you aren't in nicely lit D1 gyms (I've been there f2.8, ISO3200, 1/200)...how happy would you be packing your kit away whilst someone with a 2.8 can cover the action? I would rather have the shots to pixel peep later (not that IQ has ever spoiled a shot for me) than have no shots to obsess over the sharpness on ;)

Here are my two gym lenses. I always start with the 24-70 f/2.8 assuming I can get courtside. If not or if I need to cover both baskets I change to the 70-200 and go up into the stands. These are NOT newspaper quality but are intended for kids, parents and yearbook. Last school year I uploaded 19,230 photos to our site www.flashphotos.us<div></div>

Savas, thanks for the taking the time. I did not denigrate any lens - I was merely speaking to the fact that I didn't have enough information to reach a conclusion.

 

John: Yes, it's irrational to obsess over the sharpness of imaginary pictures. I know that, and knew that before. I guess there's some confusion, stemming from the way I posed the question. My real choice wasn't between an f/4 zoom or an f/2.8 zoom, but rather a f/2.8 zoom or a set of primes. Ultimately, I'll have to make that choice myself, but there is enough information in this thread to put away the idea that the f/2.8 IS is anything but a superb lens.

 

Thanks for all the replies, everyone.

Bryan, a fast zoom works during instances where you need to change focal lengths

on the fly and where ambient light is not too dismally low.

 

As you already know, primes trump the zoom in speed and image quality. The

question is as to whether your subjects allow for one focal length when using primes

(or might require two bodies, each one dedicated to one focal length each.) Do your

subjects give you time to swap lenses in the case when you do not have two bodies

- rhetorically said. How dark the ambient light is becomes another concern. Do you

have adequate room to move your own person is yet another concern.

 

Personal preferences and field conditions help shape the direction to go in.

F/4 zooms, even Canon f4L zooms are NOT indoor sports lenses by any stretch. Faster lenses afford yo a brighter viewfinder and a more responsive AF system.

 

So, don't even consider or think abuot a slow zoom for indoor use unless you have small budget.

 

Of course an 85 1.8 makes an excellent sports prime if you get in the right location near the floor.