Canon 70-200L f4 for indoor sports possible?

[PeteNJ]

Do you guys think that the 70-200L f4 will work as an indoor sports lens? The price difference between the f4 and f2.8 version is pretty large. I will be shooting indoor soccer and some candid wedding shots in the near future. Should I just strive for the 2.8 or will the 4.0 work as well. Thanks in advance.

[LightRules]

You need the f2.8, minimally. Check out Sigma's 70200f2.8.

[red hot sheep]

I always see people saying f4 isn't enough for indoor use. But isn't f4 to f2.8 only 1 stop? So surely you could emulate your f2.8 pictures by having one more stop of ISO noise?

[nitsch]

You lose the flexibility of the zoom but if working in low lighting conditions have you thought about the 85mm 1.8, PeteNJ?

[PeteNJ]

I always see people saying f4 isn't enough for indoor use. But isn't f4 to f2.8 only 1 stop? So surely you could emulate your f2.8 pictures by having one more stop of ISO noise?

This is what I was thinking as well.

[PeteNJ]

You lose the flexibility of the zoom but if working in low lighting conditions have you thought about the 85mm 1.8, PeteNJ?

I think I need more length than 85mm for indoor sports.

[Amorous]

I always see people saying f4 isn't enough for indoor use. But isn't f4 to f2.8 only 1 stop? So surely you could emulate your f2.8 pictures by having one more stop of ISO noise?
It really depends on the lighting situation. You need to prepare for worst case scenario. For some people, even f/2.8 is not enough, and use f/1.8 or 2.0 (with 85mm) and ISO 3200. In this case, f/4 will NEVER make it.

For the original poster, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a very good second choice to Canon 70-200 f/2.8. I just ordered one from B&H fro $714 since they had on sale. If you budget is tight, start with 85mm f/1.8 which VERY GOOD lens for portrait and indoor sports.

[hemuni]

For indoor sports 2.8 might be to slow and the F4 probably useless.
You could try using your 50mm, or get the 85F1.8 wich have faster AF.
For you wedding shots the primes will also be a lot less conspicuous, than the rather large 2.8 .

[Stan43]

I agree with my Forum buddies. For what you desribed the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are a good combo that will serve you well in low light and not kill the budget. The 85 will work pretty well for indoor soccer as well. I agree with the inconspicuousness of the short black lenses vs the big white one for weddings.

I have all the above and love the 70-200 2.8 but the fast primes are better for what you've described.

Stan

[Croasdail]

F4 for weddings... with no suplimental lighting.... nope...not going to happen.

For sports, its even worse. The camera relies on contrast to focus. The f4 just can't see well enough in the dark to lock onto fast moving objects - plus at longer focal lengths, any kind of wiggle from the photographer gets amplified. If you easily replace fast (aka expensive) lenses with some free downloadable softer... don't you think you would see a lot more people doing it. You just loose too much light - and running images through noiseware also decrease color depth. The stuff is good for subtle noise reduction... but it can't make appear there what wasn't captured in the first place.

If you are serious about indoor shooting - the 85, 100, or 135 canon primes are the cheapest way there. Next option is the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, then the Canon - in order of cost. But there is no back door way in... sorry. There is one exception to this - but I am not even going there because it will just muddy the water.... cheers.

[sugarzebra]

Indoor sports venues often (always?) have distracting backrounds, which is helped by having the widest posible apperature. So the f/2.8 vs. f/4 argument is just as much about DOF as it is speed. Bumping up the ISO doesnt change the DOF.

[PeteNJ]

thanks for all the great input guys. I think I will just break the bank and for for the Canon 70-200L 2.8

[rrpruett]

I just shot a basketball game with my 70-200 2.8 and it is marginal at ISO 1600. No way you could do it at f/4 and stop the action. Granted the gym was poorly lit but most are. Get the 2.8.

[rklepper]

I found the f2.8 version to be too slow most of the time.

[friscomgm]

The 70-200 f/4 is completely worthless for indoor sports. The 70-200 2.8 is somewhat usable in very good lighting conditions. But the 85 1.8, the 135/2, and the 200/1.8 are impossible to beat for indoor sports. Also, the 85 1.2 is unusable as focusing is just too slow, even with a 1-series and servo.

[chrishunt]

It is possible to shoot at f/4 for indoor sports, but you will certainly be using ISO 3200. I have shot many places in f/4.0 just to experiment...and have actually got pleasing results.

The better alternative is to spend a little more on faster glass because ISO 3200 is just not ideal...

[In2Photos]

It is possible to shoot at f/4 for indoor sports, but you will certainly be using ISO 3200. I have shot many places in f/4.0 just to experiment...and have actually got pleasing results.

The better alternative is to spend a little more on faster glass because ISO 3200 is just not ideal...
Unfortunately the OP has an XT which only has 1600 ISO so this won't work.

[chrishunt]

Unfortunately the OP has an XT which only has 1600 ISO so this won't work.
Oops...I missed that. You'll definitely need faster than f/4.0 in that case. :o

[ed2day]

I always see people saying f4 isn't enough for indoor use. But isn't f4 to f2.8 only 1 stop? So surely you could emulate your f2.8 pictures by having one more stop of ISO noise?

For whatever noise level you're willing to tolerate, 1 stop gives you twice as much light. I wouldn't even try with the f/4 unless you could use flash.

[Incredirebelz]

My 2c,

This is done with iso1600 no flash, from the side line, panning up to catch it with my elbow rested on my knees. Noise ninja once, JPEG quality 5/12. The original is razor sharp on the face.

This is what i could do with my F4. While I agree F2.8 is better than F4, my opinion would be to get the F4 and then maybe the 135F2L to cover what the f2.8 can't catch.... This is prolly better bang for the buck.

Then, at the end of the day, you ought to test out what you can get with an F4 in the gyms you shoot. Everyone would have different results.
:)

[Tyger]

If you can get faster glass go for it!

But I must say the F4 is still capable of decent shots in well lit arenas.
Some bball pics from the gold seats at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, most are crops using 1600 ISO (Though I wish I had the 2.8, from where I was the 85mm was too short :) )

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9941/nj0tq.jpg
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/762/raptor19eh.jpg
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/8338/raptor29vx.jpg
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/8678/raptor36xw.jpg
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/381/raptor45br.jpg
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/4921/raptor61qc.jpg
http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/491/raptor81rn.jpg
http://www.monzoncreations.com/ratpack2.gif
http://www.monzoncreations.com/ratpack4.gif