EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens question

[scott_southard]

I am going to buy the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image

Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens Saturday.

 

Any Reccomendation where to buy the lens?

 

I am going to be using this lens to take pictures of my son's high school

baseball games and high school football games at night.

 

Is the the right lens for sports photos?

 

Also, should I buy the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender to make it a 300?

 

What type of filter should I buy for the lens?

 

I have the following set-up:

1.Canon 20D.

2.Canon Speedlite 580EX

3.The Bogen / Manfrotto 3218 3 Section Monopod

 

Thanks.

 

Scott Southard

[shambrick007]

"Any Reccomendation where to buy the lens?" - B&H<p>

 

"I am going to be using this lens to take pictures of my son's high school baseball games and high school football games at night." - Be aware that IS helps counteract your movement, NOT the subjects movement. You'll need that flash, and/or the high ISO.

[nels]

<i>"Is the the right lens for sports photos?"</i><p>

 

It's the right lens for everything, including subjects you won't actually photograph using this lens. You will find that your photographs of subjects taken with other lenses will come out looking better when this lens is in the vicinity somewhere, even if that happens to be your bag. It will make your back and arms stronger, and you will sleep better just knowing that you have this lens.

<p>

Yes, 1.4x II is a nice addition to this lens. Get the best quality filter, if you must. With digital, the only filter you should need is a circular polarizer. Check the threads here on that subject.

[mark u]

Arguably the better lens for shooting night football is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, because it gives the extra reach at f/2.8 - which you will need. IS is less important when shooting sport, but the ability to shoot at motion freezing shutter speeds is crucial.

 

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

[jm650]

I got mine from B&H. http://bhphotovideo.com

 

As far as if this is the right lens for highschool sports, as always, it depends where you are standing.

 

In general, this is a fantastic lens and you wont find a faster, longer, sharper lens for the money. That being said, the next best thing might be the sigma 70-200. The sigma sports a price tag about $900 versus approximately $1700 for the canon IS and $1150 for the non-IS (assuming US models).

 

Check out the reviews, and see if you can try them out ahead of time before you buy. Consider renting...

 

IS may prove to be too valuable for night time sports to consider dropping it. The IS feature is going to cost $600, so choose wisely if costs are an issue.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Is the the right lens for sports photos?

 

Yes.

 

>> Also, should I buy the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender to make it a 300?

 

It's a very good idea.

 

>> What type of filter should I buy for the lens?

 

Why do you need a filter?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[sgpix]

Another vote for B&H (I went all the way to NYC from London to buy mine there!)...

 

This lens is so good it will scare you. It focusses at the speed of light and the images it takes are sharp enough to cut glass at one hundred paces.

 

Don't forget that it's already effectively a 112-320mm when used on the 20D. That said, the extender will prove very useful.

 

Make sure you understand the 2 different IS modes before using it to shoot moving subjects - on is for standstill and one is for panning. I think you will require the latter (mode 2).

 

Putting anything other than high quality filters on such a lens would be daft - budget for B&H Pro-MRC or Hoya Pro type ones. I use a skylight on mine just to protect it (but there are schools of thought against this - mainly around lens flare) and a circular polariser. You won't be able to get to the polariser with the lens hood on, though - it's pretty deep!

 

I would also buy a proper lens case for it, unless you already hve a big kit bag, as the Canon one is (IMO) pretty shoddy. I have a LowePro case that fits it like a glove with the lens hood on and reversed.

 

Enjoy!

[jcolwell]

I live in Canada and I bought mine online from B&H. You'll love it. It's one of the best for sports and everything else, but night lighting can be challenge, unless it's lighting for TV broadcast. I have the 1.4X Extender and 300/4 L IS, so I often use all of the above, but I sometimes travel light with the 70-200 IS and 1.4x, and it provides good results. You might want to pick up a 85/1.8, but not until after the 70-200 IS. I have B+W MRC 010 UV and MRC KSM Circ Pol filters, but I only use them when required (sand & salt spray for the UV and lighting conditions for the CP); otherwise, keep the hood on and keep it simple.

[jarek_l1]

www.bhphotovideo.com $1700 + $18.7 S&H<br>

www.buydig.com $1670 + free shipping<br>

www.adorama.com $1700 + $18.7 S&H<br><br>

 

B&H is a winner here (based on responses), but personally I bought few items from B&H and BuyDig. BuyDig states 7-9 days for shipping, but I usually get the item within 3 days. <br>

B& H -> http://www.bizrate.com/ratings_guide/cust_reviews__mid--25514.html<br>

BuyDig -> http://www.bizrate.com/ratings_guide/cust_reviews__mid--24992.html<br>

B&H seems to be better (97% vs 96% positive feedback) than BuyDig, but BuyDig will save you about $48 for a filter.<br>

The choice is yours.

[pto189]

Buy <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=470438&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">here</a>.

[larry h.]

B&H and Adorama are both good. Be aware that you will have to wait till Sunday to buy from them as they are closed on Saturday.

 

If you live in NY state, you may prefer to buy from KEH in Atlanta to save on sales tax. They are very reliable and sometimes cheaper. They are also open on Saturdays. ;-)

[14mm 2.8l]

Philip To,

 

How did you get this B&H link that has this lens for $100 less than the link I am typically shown?

 

Thanks, Lindy

[J.W. Wall]

Try going to B&H, typing "psnov" in the search box then looking at Canon items, second page. Not sure if these specials are still valid. Nice price on the 24-105mm and others, too.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

The 70-200/2.8 IS is an excellent sports lens.

 

Leave the filter off entirely. The provided lens hood (and cap and lens case) does a better job protecting the front element. And a hood improves image quality, while filters inevitibly cost *some* image quality (just how much depends upon the quality of the filter). I'm in that school of thought that says the only time to install a filter is if there is extreme weather that might damage the lens or if the filter serves a real purpose that clearly outwieghs the "cost" in IQ.

 

The 1.4X II Extender works very well with this lens. I've used the combo often. (Note: in my limited experience, the 2X II does not work nearly as well.)

 

You might also want a monopod (or tripod). Even with IS, some extra support can make for even sharper shots. Besides, the rig will get heavy, believe me!

 

I prefer to use the flash off-camera, with a generic L-bracket and a Canon Off-Camera Show Cord. That helps reduce redeye and weird shadows that can occur with the flash directly in the hot shoe. It also protects the top of the camera, bumping the protruding flash isn't directly tranmitted to the hot shoe and camera.

 

With this rig I very frequently use a flash extender, such as are shown here: http://www.rue.com/teleflash.html

[William Michael]

The lens is ideal for many sports: I question the IS if you are indeed limiting the use of the lens as you outline in your question.

 

If indeed you have no other application for the 70 to 200 F2.8L then consider the non IS version. It is lighter and less expensive.

 

I use mine (almost) exclusively for field hockey, track and field and swimming events and the weight of the lens, over a 10 hour period is a consideration. I have access to the sideline and poolside. I have not yet had an application where I wanted IS in this lens, but yes, the day I do, I will regret not having it. Choice depends upon how accurately you can interpret your lens use.

 

Yes I have both x1.4II and x2.0II.

 

The x2.0II is noticeably more problematic, 2 stops is a lot to loose inside under tungsten, inside at Olympic venues for small meets the whole lighting bank is never on; at smaller pools at night the lighting is a real challenge. I rarely use this combination if I cannot get F5.6 @ 1/400 or faster. See image for example of what I consider limit of use.

 

Outside in full sun or partial cloud the x2.0II performs adequately, but even to an untrained eye there is noticeable difference on a 10x8 prints to the x1.4II under the same scene and lighting.

 

I have not used the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, but acknowledge that 200 to300 at F2.8 would be very handy at outdoor field events under lights.

 

Regards

WW

 

Sample of what I consider the limit of the zoom and x2 teleconverter.

 

From the rear of the Grandstand: Hand held: 70 to 200 (at 200) plus x2.0II: F5.6 @ 1/400: ISO H (+ 0.6 RAW Correction): CT = 3600K: Full Frame (compressed)<div></div>