Help me decide on a lens that suits me best.

[Crashoran]

I shoot all kinds of sports. I just purchased the 20D with the 50/1.8 and it is okay for basketball but I need to get closer to the action.

I cant decide if I should get the 70-200 2.8 or simply buy the 200 2.8 and save a buttload of cash. I have this awkward feeling that if I'm in the gym with a 200mm prime I would be stuck and sometimes too close to players I want to get shots of. Hard to explain.

The two others left this year are soccer and baseball. How far of a lens will I need for a normal highschool baseball field?

If I keep saving up for the 70-200 2.8 I am going to miss alot of games in the process. And being a senior, probably my last chance ever for this.

[In2Photos]

You might want to note whether or not the baseball and soccer games will be day or night games. If they are day games then you might be able to get away with an 85mm 1.8 or a 100mm 2.0 for basketball and get a 70-200 f4 for outdoor. This should save some cash.

[Crashoran]

There are some daytime games but most start around 7:00pm and the sunset is already near.

[Longwatcher]

Before buying the 70-200/2.8 try the following (looking at the info on your images may already provide this)

See what aperture you are usually taking pictures at. If at or below F2.8 then the 70-200/2.8 is not going to do the trick. If not sure set your 50 to f2.8 and see if there is enough light to get the pictures you want.

If you are not making it at f2.8 then you are kind of stuck with the 85/1.8 or a more expensive lens.

Same would hold for the option of a 70-200/4.

Aperture is a key component of your lens decision and you may find you need the primes just to get what you need to get.

If you find you are shooting at f4 or higher then you can obviously get by with the lower cost lenses.

Just my opinion,

[dengli]

A lot of folk on here seem to favour the 85mm f1.8 for indoor sports and the general concensus is that f4 (as in the 70-200) is too slow in these situations.

A larger aperture will undoubtedly allow shooting in lower light situations but there is a law of diminishing returns you need to consider. Buying fast glass is expensive and if you go this route and start looking at f1.4 (50mm) and f1.2 (85mm) lenses then you need to seriously consider the reduced depth of field you will get at these apertures.

In fast moving sports like basketball I would image a scenario where only part of your target subject is in focus with ultra fast lenses and it may be that upping the ISO setting is a better option.

With regard to reach in outdoor sports the 70-200 f2.8 is a stellar performer and you have the option to fit a 1.4 extender if you want more reach and there is enough light.

[jjonsalt]

135L f/2 and 1.4x TC also gives you a 200 f/2.8.

[Bill Ng]

FYI ... the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is optically speaking, 99% (or equal to, depending on who you talk to) of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. No, it doesn't have IS but you're shooting sports anyway.

The Sigma costs $800 ... significant savings over the Canon.

Bill in Brooklyn

[Crashoran]

I don't know how the camera will perform on the baseball field since this will be my first year at it. There is a basketball game tonight so I will try everything out at 2.8 and 4 with the 50/1.8.

With the sigma 70-200 and the 1.4xtc it turns out to about 450mm on a 20D right? That should suit me fine on the baseball field? I want to get in close.

I wish I had comparison pictures at different focal lengths in baseball

[Crashoran]

I was able to shoot up to 1/1000 at 2.0 ISO 1600 tonight

[Crashoran]

I went by a local camera shop, they had the 70-200 2.8 non-is version and they let me throw it on my body and try it out. Wow that thing was heavy! Another con I noticed was that the zoom ring seemed very hard to turn, as I got closer to 200 it would become ever more difficult. I thought the ring would be smooth and easy to turn. I could get used to it I guess.

[grego]

For Indoors: 50 1.4 or 85 1.8

Outdoors: Sigma 100-300 f/4 - you defintely want 300mm for baseball and soccer. Fast, sharp, and very well priced.

For the price of 2 of those, you can get if for the 70-200 2.8. Might be a good alternative.

[grego]

I don't know how the camera will perform on the baseball field since this will be my first year at it. There is a basketball game tonight so I will try everything out at 2.8 and 4 with the 50/1.8.

With the sigma 70-200 and the 1.4xtc it turns out to about 450mm on a 20D right? That should suit me fine on the baseball field? I want to get in close.

I wish I had comparison pictures at different focal lengths in baseball

With the crop factor, you get something around there. It should be good if you have that Sigma already. Or the other Sigma alternative for outdoors I gave you.

I went by a local camera shop, they had the 70-200 2.8 non-is version and they let me throw it on my body and try it out. Wow that thing was heavy! Another con I noticed was that the zoom ring seemed very hard to turn, as I got closer to 200 it would become ever more difficult. I thought the ring would be smooth and easy to turn. I could get used to it I guess.

The Canon 70-200 is going to be heavy. Lots of good glass in there. The wheel could be messed up on that. Usually the wheel does lighten up a little after use.

[Crashoran]

I just don't know if f/4 will be okay during the night baseball games.

this is killing me :(

[hammerman660]

I went by a local camera shop, they had the 70-200 2.8 non-is version and they let me throw it on my body and try it out. Wow that thing was heavy! Another con I noticed was that the zoom ring seemed very hard to turn, as I got closer to 200 it would become ever more difficult. I thought the ring would be smooth and easy to turn. I could get used to it I guess.

It is a heavy lens, 77mm and lots of glass inside, but the zoom SHOULD be silky smooth and very easy to turn. Sigma's are stiffer and in the opposite direction, so if you are used to the Canon direction, this can play tricks on you. but like I said the zoom should be very, very easy. I use mine on an original 1d (heavier than the mk2) hand held with a hand strap and can support the lens / camera with the heal of my left hand and rotate the zoom ring with one finger

Hope this helps