CANON EF 70-200 F/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM OR CANON EF 70-200 F/4L USM NON IS...SHOOTING SONS FOOTBALL GAMED WHICH ONE???

IM TORN....IM ABOUT TO PURCHASE ANEW LENS THAT I USE TO SHOOT MY SONS

FOOTBALL TEAM.....ID LOVE TO BUY AN L SERIES LENS LIKE THE 70-200 L

IS VERSION BUT ONLY CAN ONLY AFFORD THE NON IS ONE...ANOTHER OPTION

IS THE CANON EF 100-300 4.5-5.6 DO IS USM ....THE ZOOM POWER IN A

SMALL LENS IS APPEALING..PLUS THE IS WOULD HELP MY WHILE IM RUNNING

DOWN THE FEILD TRYING TO GET A PICTURE.....ANY ADVICE

PHIL

please turn off caps lock

If you are going to be shooting in bright sunshine, either zoom will work...however, if you are going to be using your camera at night games, with so-so field lighting, save your money. Neither lens will work real well (even with a flash) at a night football game.

Instead of running down the field, get a 300mm. I have shot high school football for years and found the 200mm barely sufficent. I am a Nikon user of both film and now digital ( makes that 300mmm a nice 450mm)

Get an f/2.8. F/4 will leave you will blurred pictures in night games. IS won't help much if at all, as the exposures you'll be taking will be short enough that camera shake won't be an issue. A 70-200 2.8 or a 120-300 f/2.8 on a monopod (On an APS cropped DSLR) is about the most versatile setup for football games (provided you stay near the line of scrimmage.

Agreed, I used a 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for a while, but the first time my editor sent me on a floodlit game or overcast late afternoon, my shutter speeds simply weren't even close to fast enough. I hit the plastic hard and now have a 70-200 f2.8 and have not regretted it since. The decision to make is if the future photography you plan to warrants the outlay.

 

Definitely, if you have a nice sunny day you'll be fine, just don't plan on using the slower lenses in poorer light.

 

T.

IS is virtually useless for sports because your subject(s) move.

Phil,

First..what camera body are you using? The 20D and 1DMII are both good at higher ISO settings in the 800-1600 range and that will help a bit with your shutter speed in low light.

 

I have both the 70-200L 2.8 IS and the 100-400L 4.5-5.6. Hands down the 70-200 is a better lens especially in low light. If I could only own one lens it would be the 70-200 with IS. I use it for sports and portraits. I just ordered a 1.4 extender and I am told it works wonderfully with the 70-200 and gives you about a 280 lens, but you do loose one stop. Good luck.

 

Bill,

I don?t agree with your assessment on IS. I use IS constantly on my sports pictures. The new versions of IS even have a panning setting for lateral movement. I think the IS is invaluable for sports photography, especially in low light situations. I think the new IS can add between 2-3 stops.

Action is stopped with high shutter speeds. How much blur you get with lower shutter speeds depends on angular motion of the subject, distance to the subject, etc. So it will depend on the sports involved, the kind of shot you are looking for. A batter in baseball may show very little motion except for the motion of the bat itself, yet even a higher shutter speed may not stop the tip of the bat. But IS won't reduce the need for speed. A shot of a dynamic subject with IS at 1/125 isn't going to look like the same shot at 1/500.

Bill Tuthill is right, and many experienced sports photographers would agree with him. IS is not much use for fast action sports where the most essential thing is fast aperture lenses to get high shutter speeds in most lighting conditions. IS does have uses in low lighting situations such a stage plays or theatrical performances where flash is prohibited. You could also consider a Sigma 70-200 HSM EX 70-200 f 2.8 no IS but well built and in the same league as the Canon equivalent at half the price