Which lens to buy

Discussion in 'Sports' started by dave_rice, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. Any suggestions on which of these two lenses would be better for me to buy,
    would be much appreciated.
    Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM or
    Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

    I will be shooting amatuer sports (little league baseball, basketball, soccer,
    etc.) Basically is the IS worth while? I would expect i'll be using a monopod
    most of the time. Any feedback would be helpful.

    Thanks,
    Dave
     
  2. Get the f2.8 version. IS won't be of much use for sports, since it does not stop subject motion, whereas the higher shutter speeds of an f2.8 lens will. As a bonus, the f2.8 comes with a tripod collar for a monopod, but the f4 doesn't.
     
  3. Thanks for the advice!
     
  4. Dave I agree the 2.8 is the way to go look at pictures shot wide open at 200mm and you will see why,the wide aperture isolates the background and makes the pictures pop.I shoot at a wide aperture even when therre is a lot of light. cheers Steve
    00Lj6R-37261984.jpg
     
  5. Go with f2.8 for when light level falls, IS won't help giving you that action stopping shutter speed, but larger aperture will.
    00LjE0-37264784.jpg
     
  6. Another consideration for f2.8 is you'll be able to blur away distracting background more effectively should background be too close to subject.
    00LjEu-37264984.jpg
     
  7. I shoot with the 70-200 f2.8L IS, and find the image stabilization does help even with a monopod. When on the No. 2 setting (stablizing on just the horizontal axis) I get somewhat sharper images, especially in low lighting situations. Regardless, definately go for the 2.8 aperature for the reasons mentioned above.
    00LjFn-37265284.jpg
     
  8. Either the 70-200 F4, non IS, or the 70-200 2.8. IS is, IMO, overrated in most situations. It is certainly not needed in sports where a monopod can be used if necessary. It is especially not needed on a lens as light as the F4 version, IMO. 70mm can be a little long in a gym. I strongly suggest the 2.8 version. its a very nice lens.
     
  9. Thanks very much everyone!!!
     
  10. If you are going to shoot indoors, I think you should add some fast primes... a 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. For outdoor sport, you may find that 200mm is rather limited in terms of reach. Depending on the lighting you hope to shoot in, you might want to consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 - although you will definitely need to use a monopod with it. You can add a 1.4xTC for even more reach.
     
  11. For the same price range I'd be considering the Canon EF 85/1.8, Canon EF 200/2.8 L, and Canon EF 1.4x. I shoot soccer with a 200/2 and a 400/2.8 on a 1.6x DSLR and have found that a 300mm focal length would be ideal. The 200/1.4x would give you this and when you start running out of light you can fall back on the straight 200. The 85 would be good for indoor sports or soccer shots at the net with even less light.
     
  12. I can second the recommendation for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, as it is sharp over the entire range.

    What you did NOT state was which Canon camera are you screwing these lenses on to? 35mm film? Full-frame or 4/3rds dSLR?
     
  13. Canon 30D
     
  14. I appreciate the recommendation on the Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 but the reason I'm looking at the other two lenses is that they are in the $1000 range. I'm only finding the Sigma for closer to $2600.
    Thanks,
    Dave
     

Share This Page