70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or either 75-200mm f/4 USM for Canon 40D and indoor sports photography?

[smithmaestro]

<p>Hi, I'm a beginner, and I'm checking out two of these lenses.</p>

<p>Well, first of all, I heard that the 70-300mm has been bad in the sharp-image quality, and that the 75-200mm has been outstanding, even comparing them on www.the-digital-picture.com.</p>

<p>Although, I'm confused on which one I should get. I'm mostly going to take shots of Indoor sports, probably outdoors at times, but I'm having a hard time choosing now, either the 70-300mm or the 75-200mm w/o IS. Also, what would be the difference of the 75-200mm with IS and non IS. Should i Need a tripod everywhere I go since I really need to be mobile taking shots of the perfect moments of any sport. That reminds me of swimming as well, I'll be outdoors too. So indoors and outdoors, lots of movement. IS or Non IS for the 75-200mm? And 70-300mm with semi-sharp images, or 75-200 with good images, but IS or non IS?</p>

<p>Thanks, and I'm using the Canon 40D. If you have sample images of either Lenses, please show them up (and the IS and non IS, I haven't seen the difference of the non IS and IS on the 75-200mm and an image sample of the semi-sharp image of the 70-300mm)</p>

[phule]

<p>Neither lens will help you with indoor sports unless the lighting is broadcast tv quality or perhaps if you're looking to have every one of your photos full of motion blur. </p>

<p>You need, at minimum, an f/2.8 lens. </p>

 

[smithmaestro]

<p>I can't really afford that, but i guess it will help with the indoors as well as the outdoors.</p>

[smithmaestro]

<p>Yea, that's true. f/2.8 gets more light than an f/4.</p>

<p>Although, lets just switch it to an f/2.8, but without IS since I can't afford the IS version yet. But could you tell me the difference of the IS and non IS, I don't want to use a tripod and run around with it everywhere since it would be annoying, and I need to be mobile every second. IS or non IS? even though I can't afford the IS version. And if you have samples of IS and non IS version, please show them, thanks.</p>

[phule]

<p>The job of IS is to steady you, not your subjects. Freezing action means high shutter speeds. High shutter speeds means you'll (likely) not have to worry about your own movements blurring the images.</p>

<p>Zoom lenses are not the only applicable choices here. Focal length choice is driven by a number of factors.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Right. At shutter speeds that will freeze sports action, the IS isn't going to make much (if any) difference. With slower apertures, you'll be forced to slower shutter speeds that will result in motion blur by the subject - which IS can do nothing about.<br /><br />When you say "indoor sports," what are you talking about? You might be better off with a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8, and get yourself WAY more light into the camera for certain kinds of sports.</p>

[smithmaestro]

<p>For example, Indoor Football (soccer), Basketball, Dodgeball, many more sports though. But then I might also use the same lens for outdoor events such as swimming, outdoor football (soccer), carnivals going on, Track & Field. But since my school's basketball season is ending, and the football season has ended, the only thing left is the swimming championships, so yea. But I guess there will be more events coming up outdoors than indoors, but still, indoors would be unexpected.</p>

[smithmaestro]

<p>Alright, nevermind then. Recommendations for Indoor and outdoor photography? Not really outdoor, but swimming events and such, probably football matches as well. Telephoto zoom? L series lenses?</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Also consider using a monopod, they give great stability are easy to move around with and don't annoy the people next to you!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>We have determined that you do not need IS. When I shoot with similar weight equipment I generally choose handheld but quite likely for a full day of shooting I will use a monopod at least half the time just to make it easier on my back and shoulders. It can also help you steady your framing and therefore help you get sharper shots at the same action stopping shutter speeds of 1/250 to 1/500. </p>

<p>Image quality fanatics like myself, who shoot 99% of their images at ISO 100, demand maximum apertures of f2, and f2.8 in their telephotos. However, for most situations, and I think yours, f4 aperture lenses are fine. It simply means that for any given situation you may have to set the ISO one stop higher, ie. shoot at ISO 200 instead of ISO 100, or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800. </p>

<p>Having said that, for the same price I would take the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) over the Canon EF 70-200/4 L IS in a heartbeat! So if you do stretch your budget consider this option. You refer several times to 75-200mm zooms but I assume you are referring to the two Canon EF 70-200/4 L lenses.</p>

<p>You are headed in the right direction. I would prefer cropping an image from the 70-200/4 L than an image from one of the xx-300mm fxx-f5.6 shot at one stop higher ISO.</p>

<p>Indoor swimming is your toughest challenge, and gets even more challenging if you are not on deck. You will have to shoot at high ISO and fill flash is nice if you can achieve it (officials and budget).</p>

<p>For indoor gymnasium stuff I would add a $100 Canon EF 50/1.8 later on. With ultra dim and generally horrible colour lighting and not a window in sight you need the biggest aperture you can get. The 50 on a crop body shooting from the floor is long enough. An 85/1.8 would be nice.</p>

<p>I have been shooting all these types of events using five different superfast prime lenses from 50/1.4 to 400/2.8 for several years now and I am finally in the hunt for an xx-200mm f2.8 lens myself to use with 1.4x and 2x converters, mostly for field sports. You too can also consider this option down the road, especially for field sports where you need longer focal range. The f4 L lenses will perform well with a 1.4x and still autofocus. It will not autofocus with a 2x, unless I believe you are using a 1 series body. The f2.8 zoom will work well with either converter. While I always recommend a 1.4x converter over 2x converters it is nice to know that you could put a 2x on the 70-200/2.8 L, if you go that route, and still get autofocus. Yes, you end up at f5.6 but the image quality is superior to an xx-300/5.6 and under full outdoor sun it is still possible to freeze the action. </p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have owned both the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I currently use the 70-300 f4-5.6 but keep thinking about getting the IS version of the 70-200 f4 L as it is such a brilliant lens. That is not to say the 70-300 is not a very good lens - it is - just not as good as the 70-200 f4 L.</p>

<p>The difference in image quality is tha the 70-200 f4 L and the other Canon 70-200 L lenses, all have wonderful sharpness, colour and contrast. The 70-300 f4-5.6 has very good sharpness, good colour and good contrast - but not quite up t the standard of the L lenses.The extra sharpness f the 70-200 L allows greater cropping which minimises the 300mm reach of the longer zoom range.</p>

<p>The IS facility is inavluable. I would not buy a long lens without it these days. So for me the choice would be between the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS and the 70-200 f4 L IS. If you cannot afford the IS version then you will need good light and fas shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Other deciding factors for me are portability - the 70-20 is jus a bit bigger and heavier - and conspicuousness - the 70-300 s a nice anonymous black not the more extrovert white.<br /> But I keep hearing the siren song of that 70-200 f4 L IS :)</p>

<p> </p>

[dstephenson]

<p>Bryan, I leave the 70-200 f/2.8L IS at home when I am shooting indoor sports. I have found an EF 100mm f/2.0 to be an excellent lens. It has a very fast focus and surprisingly sharp on my 40D. It also is a nice portrait lens on my 5D2. <br>

Doug</p>

[dstephenson]

<p>Bryan, I leave the 70-200 f/2.8L IS at home when I am shooting indoor sports. I have found an EF 100mm f/2.0 to be an excellent lens. It has a very fast focus and surprisingly sharp on my 40D. It also is a nice portrait lens on my 5D2. <br>

Doug</p>

[dstephenson]

<p>Wow how did that happen, having trouble uploading an image. Sorry guys.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Bryan:</p>

<p>For indoor sports, I'd suggest either the 85/1.8 ($380 new or about $300 used) or 135/2 ($1000/$850 new/used), depending on how close you will be and your budget.</p>

<p>I generally use both of these wide open, and I still struggle with getting adequate shutter speeds without higher ISOs. In some venues, I shoot at ISO 6400 at f/2 and 1/500th. (For comparison, I'm not happy with my 40D at anything over ISO 800.) In the well lit arenas, it's easier to get to ISO 1600 at f/2.8 and 1/500th.</p>

<p>I would suggest starting with outdoor sports. The equipment required to get good shots is a lot cheaper. Low light and high shutter speeds demand faster lenses and bodies that deliver better quality at higher ISOs. In the past, many sports photographers would use strobes to get the quality they need at indoor events, like basketball. This is the first year that Sports Illustrated didn't use strobes for the NCAA final four games. The sensors are getting better in lower light. Those cameras are expensive, though.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I love the 70-200 F4L for outdoor sports. That being said, I also leave it at home for indoor sports. I know that for poorly lit situations, I will end up with some very noisy photos. However; I did have some success at a very well lit hockey arena, depending on your budget, if you are wanting to do a lot of indoor sports f2.8 would be the very smallest that you would want to go.</p>

<p>I love my 50 1.8 for indoor sports, although I sometimes wish for more reach.</p>

[Marc453]

<p>I use the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (non-IS) for sports with the 1.4 and 2X extenders. There is no comparison to the F/4 or slower lenses, especially for indoor sports.</p>

[Marc453]

<p>I use the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (non-IS) for sports with the 1.4 and 2X extenders. There is no comparison to the F/4 or slower lenses, especially for indoor sports.</p>

 

[Marc453]

<p>Sorry had the same problem Douglas had. Maybe there should be a way to delete your extra posts. This was shot with the Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8 (non-IS). While most college gyms have better lighting, high schools are notorious for their poor lighting. This is where this kind of lens shows its worth.</p><div></div>

[kristinsson]

<p>Check out the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG OS (with image stabilization). You will be suprised by the quality of the shots, and for that cash...</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>As you're finding out, for indoors you need aperture and for outdoors you want reach. But aperture + reach equals big bucks. One solution is to split up the duties between two lenses. Consider 85/1.8 for indoors and 55-250/4-5.6 IS for outdoors. You should be able to get the combo for about 650 USD.</p>