EF 70-200mm f4L USM lens

[Spearin]

Well, I'm evaluating my purchasing options for when I get the 20D this winter (post-January). I'm looking at keeping my purchase under $3000 (CDN) and using Photocreative (http://www.photocreative.com) as my basis, since I will most likely be ordering through them (my aunt and uncle know the owner ;) ).

I have been browsing these Forums for a while now... and one thing I've learned (out of many) is that L seem FAR more superior to all others.

So, I've been looking for a somewhat 'cheaper' L lens that is under $1000 and will suit my needs. I am currently shooting a lot for my University's newspaper - mostly sports and concerts along with any other odd jobs. I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I use now on an old EOS 650... so that can be used for any close ups.

For sports, I'm looking at getting the EF 70-200mm f4L USM lens. I was playing with an L lens (I think the 24-105mm) in the camera shop one time... and one thing that really struck me as being awesome, was the fact that it could be manually focused at any time (even in AF). Does the 70-200 f4L also have this option? Is it a standard feature on all L lenses?

If I go the route of the 70-200mm f4L... I'll probably just be getting that lens, the 20D body, and a 2GB card... anything much else and I'll be completely broke! Finally, if there is an cheaper alternative to the 70-200mm f4L... then I'm all ears.

[OregonRebel]

While the 70 - 200 is a great lens, 70 mm is nowhere near wide enough for an only lens. The 17 -85 has a much more practical range and also lets you manually focus (even in AF).

[Spearin]

The problem with the 17-85mm though is its reach. I want to be able to get some fairly tight crops when shooting sports (football, volleyball, soccer, hockey, etc.). I do have the 50mm that I can use if I want some (semi) wide-angle shots... but the zoom is more important to me right now than wide-angle, and hopefully by the time I need wide-angle... I'll be able to afford it :)

[RacingMoose]

Spearin...I see you mentioned hockey as a subject you might be shooting. I've been asking a number of questions and getting some great feedback on shooting hockey. I'm leaning heavily towards the Sigma 70-200 2.8 based on the reviews, feedback, and of course the cost. Many members here steered me away from the F4 for situations such as hockey. Thought I'd throw that in....

[pcasciola]

The 70-200/4L is definitely one of the best bang for you buck telephoto zooms. It's every bit as sharp as the 2.8L versions, and half to a third the cost. I do find that range a little short on larger field sports like soccer, lacrosse and football, but for baseball it's a good range. You do lose the stop though, so as RacingMoose said, you may have a problem with indoor sports like hockey, basketball and volleyball. Depending on the lighting, f/2.8 may not be enough for those sports anyway, so you may want to have a look at the 85/1.8 which is a good indoor lens for basketball and volleyball but maybe a little on the short side for hockey if you want to cover the entire rink. It's also reasonably priced and will not blow out your budget.

Also, you will find that most EF lenses have manual focus capability.

Good luck, and let us know how it works out.