Canon EOS 70-200mm f4 vs. 80-200 f2.8

[conrad_stoll1]

So i've been shooting sports for about two years now with a canon 10D. Last year I upgraded to NCAA

football and i've been loving it, but unfortunately I can only use my 10D sparingly for it because I don't

have a decent long lens. Sometimes I get to use a nikon with a 300mm f2.8 thats in our office, but its

not always around. For as many sports, and other outdoor activities that I shoot I've decided its time to

pick up a quality telephoto zoom to replace my aging 75-300 f4.5-5.6 usm.

 

I've narrowed it down to the 70-200 f4 and the 80-200 f2.8, but quite honestly i'm leaning towards the

70-200 f4.

 

Looking at the 70-200 f4 I see a newer lens with faster af, lighter weight, newer optics technology, and

a repairable lens that I can buy new for about 600.

 

The 80-200 f2.8 seems to have been a wonderful lens, but it obviously isn't made anymore, and cannot

be repaired by canon. Since you have to buy the lens used to get it at all, that sure doesn't make a 800

dollar investment look very tempting. The AF certainly feels slower from what I saw in a photo shop the

other day while I was checking both lenses out.

 

So really what I want to know is will the f4 work well enough for what I want to do with it? I'm looking

for the lens to be able to focus fast in fast sports (football, basketball, etc.) and also at the f4 end to be

able to throw the background out of focus well. That is a huge deal to me since in outdoor sports like

football you really want to be able to isolate the subject in the foreground. Is the bokeh on the f4 equal

or better than the older 80-200? How do those two lenses compare in that respect? And finally how

well does the f4 fare indoors? Does it get enough light in a basketball arena, or gymnasium?

 

I'll likely rent the lens eventually to test it myself before I buy one, but I was just looking for some user

opinions about the f4 and the old 80-200 f2.8.

 

The 70-200 f2.8 is out of my price range at this point. I'm looking to spend about 700 or so on a lens,

and the 1200 for the 2.8 is just a bit more than i'm looking to do.

 

Thanks for any advice you can give me,

 

- Conrad

[brucecyr]

Just to add to the confusion: What about the SIGMA 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-300 f/4? Reviews at photozone.de and elsewhere.

[John Crowe]

I would invest in two different lenses, one for outdoors and one for indoors.

 

 

For outdoors I suspect that you would not be using the 70-199mm range very often with a 10D at a football field. I suggest the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L on your 10D as a reasonable start. Not as long as the more ideal 300/2.8, but extremely sharp, just as fast, and much easier to use. Same price as the 70-200/4 L but sharper and faster. It will also take a Canon 1.4x or 2x converter which the 80-200/2.8 will not.

 

 

f4 in a gym is going to be slow and I suspect for the most part that you will only be using the short side of a 70 or 80 to 200mm zoom. The 200/2.8 would also be too long. I'd recommend an 85/1.8 or 100/2 to start. You can even get buy with a $75 50/1.8 on the 10D until you can justify one of the longer prime lenses. Good luck.

[roderick_white]

What about the Canon 70-300? Got great reviews and extends your range. Look on photodoto

[conrad_stoll1]

Interesting responses, that does give me some more to look into, especially with the 200 2.8.

 

As far as the 70-300 goes though, I discounted it because its the same price as the 70-200

f4 but with a slower f stop, and the IS really doesn't do much for sports anyway, since your

shutter speed is already in the 1/2000th range anyway.

[awindsor]

The suggestion for indoor primes is a good one. Often f2.8 is too slow in poorly lit venues (at least if you want an action stopping shutter speed). Furthermore in indoor shots the background is often more cluttered and a fast aperture can help blur the background to concentrate attention on the subject.

 

I have not shot sporting events outside so I don't know how limiting a prime would be. All the shooters I have seen at the tennis use primes but the action is much more constrained there (You can set up to cover the base line and they even switch ends for you). The guys I see at the football seem to be using 400/2.8 lens with monopods and move along the touch lines. If you are in a seat and cannot move then a prime might be limiting.

 

The suggestion for the Sigma is not bad. It is weakest at 200 2.8 which is where you want to use it most but it is still serviceable. It is around $800.

 

The 70-300/4-5.6 IS might be both a little slow in aperture and in AF. Apparently the AF has been improved over the previous version (which I have used and would definitely rate as too slow) but it still uses a micromotor USM drive. This may make for poor servo focusing performance. It is optically very good and had it been available when I got my 70-200/4 could well have come out ahead.

 

The 70-200/4 is one of my favourite lenses and makes up 1/3 of my walk around kit (50/1.8 and 17-40/4). Even paired with a 1.4x its optical performance is great (not very flare resistant but that is only a problem if you are shooting directly into the sun) though its AF performance is then fairly terrible.

[conrad_stoll1]

How would you rate the f4's ability to isolate the subject outdoors?

 

I am on the sidelines so I can usually get pretty close in, so the length of the 200 is not

really a limiting factor (even when using a f2.8 zoom nikon lens with a max length of 300,

I find myself shooting around 150-200 anyway, because I am so close).

 

I do like the utility of a zoom, but I may have to give the 200 2.8 a test run.

 

 

I should have mentioned that I am also planning on picking up a 50 1.8 pretty soon. I'm

sure that will get a good bit of use indoors. I do have a 28-135 IS lens that also serves me

very well indoors. How would you rate that lens compared to some of the other primes for

inside sports?

 

Thanks so much.

[awindsor]

I guarantee than an f2.8 zoom will focus fine in an indoor sporting arena (my 2.8 lenses focus in light much lower than any sporting arenas) but depending on the arena you might be struggling for a high shutter speed (though you can crank up the ISO).

 

Having said that if the 200mm lens is long enough then go with a 2.8 zoom. They are highly usable in most situations (and you can use high ISO to compensate when the light is lower). An 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 will be mostly useless for shooting football even on a 1.6x crop factor body. The longest cheap prime faster than the 2.8 zooms is the Canon 100/2 which is as good as the 85/1.8 but somehow gets less airtime.

[conrad_stoll1]

Honestly I can't afford a 2.8 zoom, thats why i'm wondering how the f4 would compare for 1)

subject isolation and b) performance at the short end for decently lit arenas (I work for UT

which has pretty good sporting facilities).

 

Whats your opinion of the 70-200 f4 for those categories?

[mark u]

You will need an f/2 or faster lens for indoor work - for basketball, a 50 or 85 is a good length on a crop body. There are plenty of venues where you will struggle to do better than 1/350th at f/2 at 1600 ISO. Speed of focus can be less critical than you imagine for basketball, since you know where the action will be under the basket, allowing you to prefocus.

 

You will know from having shot with the 300 f/2.8 what the benefits of focal length and aperture are for shooting football. However, that prime in Canon mount is a big ticket item. Outside your budget for now, but well worth bearing in mind for the future is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 HSM - a great sports shooter's lens that you can also use with a 1.4x TC for some extra reach. You'll find reviews of it here:

 

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

 

Its smaller brother, the 100-300 f/4 HSM might be worth considering over something that is or ends at f/2.8. Although the Canon 200 f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 would also be good choices you might find you wanted to add a 1.4x TC for extra reach at extra cost. The advantage with the 200s is that you will get better subject isolation shooting at f/2.8 (although the advantage is lost with the TC).

[conrad_stoll1]

Yeah i'm starting to realize the need for a serious zoom for most indoor sports is not there,

especially when I look through my old basketball shots and most of my good ones were

around the 50mm focal length anyway.

 

As far as outdoor sports and scenery go though, how would the f4 do? My two principles are

resolution, and subject isolation, with emphasis on subject isolation since that is so huge for

dramatic sports shots.

 

Thanks.

[yakim_peled1]

What you need is a 70-200/2.8 but since you can't afford it, I suggest you try the 70-200/4 because it is "a newer lens with faster af, lighter weight, newer optics technology" and - if the worse happens - "a repairable lens".

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[scil_concepts]

You should buy my F4L. Pristine Condition! The only reason I am selling is due to purchasing a F2.8L IS USM, which I would also recommend to you, if you had the $1900 to spend.

[pavel_olavich]

For your sporting purposes, F4 too slow....time to save up for the F2.8L IS, or get a 135L or 200L....but perhaps the slowest you should go is F2....will the 135L be long enough?