Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens

[george_gan1]

<p>What would be the next step up on this lens? I looking to shot sporting events and wildlife with a Canon 50d.</p>

 

[john_macpherson]

<p>The f2.8 version, followd by the 300 f2.8.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Is your current zoom too slow or too short?</p>

<p>A few ideas depending on needs and budget:</p>

<p>200/2.8 L</p>

<p>70-200/2.8 L</p>

<p>70-200/2.8 L IS</p>

<p>300/4 L (used)</p>

<p>300/4 L IS</p>

<p>300/2.8 L IS</p>

<p>400/5.6 L</p>

<p>100-400/5.6 L IS</p>

<p>400/2.8 L or 500/4 L or 600/4 L if money and weight is absolutely no object. </p>

[harold_motte]

<p>You do not say what camera you are using or what kind of sports. So in general;;<br>

For sporting events I would also say 70-200 f2.8 L. and longer for the better than the 70-300mm F4-5.6.<br>

You probably can do with the one without IS for sports since the shutter speed will be up. You could get one of those for near what the F4 with IS cost or is worth.<br>

The 2.8 for sure for when the light is going away.<br>

I would suggest at least 400mm for wildlife; 500mm or 600mm would probably be better.<br>

I use a 400mm and that is as short unless I have been not too terribly far away. It will take the converter but will not be able to use AF, unless you mess with the pins.<br>

Indoor sports with poor light I would go with a 50mm or 85mm with a crop camera from the corner or under the basket. The 70-200mm f/2.8 if you are further away - for inside sports/gym.</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>Why can't you shoot sports with this lens? It is my bread and butter auto racing lens, image quality is every bit as good as the 2.8 version (I've used them both), nice and light, super fast AF. Why do you feel you need to "step up"</p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The question is actually... what do you need to do that you cannot do with this lens? The answer to that question will help you determine what the "next step up" might be, if any.</p>

<p>Otherwise there is no single answer to your question.</p>

[george_gan1]

<p>I'm very undecided on weather to go with the IS version which is a little more.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>IS gains you the ability to handhold the camera in low light situations at several stops slower shutter speeds... as long as subject motion is not an issue. If you need to shoot active subjects in low light the f/2.8 aperture gets you (only) one stop over the f/4 model, but the IS gets you nothing.</p>

<p>For your wildlife and sports subjects... IS will likely have no value for you in sports photography. IS may or may not have value for wildlife photography depending on whether the subject is moving or still and how low the light is as you shoot. By the way, 200mm is only marginally long for wildlife - often people want longer lenses than that for much wildlife shooting. What forms of wildlife do you shoot?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[george_gan1]

<p>Right now I'm doing stuff with birds.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Sounds like you need some versatility. The minimum focal length for small birds is generally considered around 400mm. The 100-400L is a great tele zoom for that purpose, but it's probably not ideal for low light, indoor or night time sports. If you are shooting outdoor sports in good light, it will do a fine job.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Unless you can get very close or are shooting very big birds, 200mm may not be long enough.</p>