70-200mm for sports and outdoor, or a 300mm?

[genewch]

A friend of mine has an old 70-200mm f/2.8 made in 1990s for sale. It's really a solid little submarine. The lens' condition was mint because it's seldom used. He could offer me about 30% off. I'm deciding whether to buy it. I intend to use this range for shooting in the country parks, (outdoor) sports, such stuff etc. Well, I own a 135mm f/2 which can be converted into a 190mm with a 1.4x converter. My original intention is to get a 300mm f/4 for the above use. The price is about the same of a new 70-200 f/2.8. Now my friend's offer is attractive. What aspects should I consider to make a decision?

[ACDCROCKS]

70-200mm f/2.8 will suite you well for just about anysport with it's aperature. The 300mm f/4 will keep you away from them night pics unless you have a flash. I don't reccomend a flash for night sport's photography becausing the F-ing thing won't charge fast enough ;) lol. But Anyway get the 70-200mm f/2.8 and witht eh 30% you save get a 1.4 converter to make a 280mm for them Wild wife shots,

[genewch]

I dont' have a 1.4x converter yet, but it's good to have one.

Since 135mm + 1.4x = 190 f/2.8, is it good enough to have a prime for sports? But my friend's offer is attractive indeed, up to 30% discount. But the 70-200mm is really heavy. I have to get a monopod to hold it steady.

[Mark_Cohran]

I have that lens and it's a great piece of equipment. I don't think you'll regret the purchase.

Mark

[20DNewbie]

Love my 70-200 2.8, it rarely comes off the body. That is until I get the 100-400 from Kev for a couple of weeks.:D

[Dante King]

Love my 70-200 2.8, it rarely comes off the body. That is until I get the 100-400 from Kev for a couple of weeks.:D

you will learn to love both. Apples to oranges in what these puppies can do.

[ACDCROCKS]

Well, the TC's going to cost you a little bit of image quality (not much, mind you), but I have to imagine that the 70-200 at 200mm will give you a better image than the 135 with TC.

The 300 f4 does have IS, but if you've got good technique, you don't need that. Plus, shooting sports means you're dealing with fast shutter speeds which negates the need for IS.

While the 300f4 will give you a better image than the 70-200 with a TC, I think the flexibility of a 70-200 2.8 and the teleconverter for the same price outweighs the slight image degradation.

Basically, I can't see any reason to pass up that 70-200 f2.8 at that price. Chances are you'll never get a deal that good again. If you only want primes, then I can't say anything to that. However, the 70-200 is a REALLY good lense and doesn't give up much to the prime lenses that cover that range.

I dissagree that IS does not help with sports.

[ACDCROCKS]

I dont' have a 1.4x converter yet, but it's good to have one.

Since 135mm + 1.4x = 190 f/2.8, is it good enough to have a prime for sports? But my friend's offer is attractive indeed, up to 30% discount. But the 70-200mm is really heavy. I have to get a monopod to hold it steady.
It's not heavy, you'll get useto it after a week. I shot 4 hours of football today and did'nt get bothered by the weight. I didn't use a monopod.

[jcpoulin]

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with my 1.6 crop rebel and this brings it to 300!! I just did a daughters soccer game and I could not have done it with a 300 alone. As play moves closer, I needed the 70 to 100 range ( near sidelines ) and play moved away, the 200 was fine. A little crop and I could fully isolate her if needed. Don't box yourself in to a focal length unless you know you will be farther away. A converter ( 1.4) could even change these numbers. A 300mm lens is not as functional as the 70-200 for non-sports photos. My Sigma cost $ 810 from sigma4less and may be cheaper than the used canon and optics runs very close if not better ( depends who you ask!!!
PS....IS for most sports.....not needed due to shutter speeds.

[genewch]

Yeah, you guys are tempting me to accept a kind offer. :) I agree that it's a very good offer that I may not find another. The 70-200 f/2.8 is such a reputed zoom. I love the feel of holding it and shooting with it though it's a big baby. Thank you guys. I'm considering the funding to complete this deal.

[genewch]

The lack of IS is a push to me to handle tele lens well. I'll train myself to have steady robot arms. :P

[Mike Reynolds]

awe just gettem both

[Tareq]

People, please post images samples from both lenses about sports to see if one of them or both are great for sports, thats better than discussing this point in many pages.

[Dan-o]

7-2 2.8

http://www.stantoneagles.com/me/2323.jpg

[molesrkool]

you save get a 1.4 converter to make a 280mm for them Wild wife shots,[/quote]

ooh.. wild wife shots :rolleyes:

my immature side coming out

[Palladium]

People, please post images samples from both lenses about sports to see if one of them or both are great for sports, thats better than discussing this point in many pages.

a couple of women's soccer Adelphi Univ vs Kutztown State from 9-6-2006 see the rest at Adelphi Univ vs Kutztown State from 9-6-2006 (http://www.ladydigital.org)
full captures cropped to 5x7 ratio

below is 300 f4 with canon tc 1.4 and 1/500 @ 5.6 iso 200
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6726/mg1525jn6.jpg

below is 300mm f4 with canon tc 1.4 1/200 @ 5.6 iso 125
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/566/mg1284ye4.jpg

[ronmayhew]

For sports the shutter speed normally has to be so high that IS is not a factor.
This photo from a Sigma 70-200, Tv mode, 1/2000, f/6.3, ISO 400, 126mm.
I've been pretty satisfied with that lens.

[Big Hands]

Ron, GREAT capture!

Here is a sample (second shot) of what can be done with a 70-200 with a 1.4x TC. In this case, it was from my f/4L version when I had it. The first shot is just straight 70-200 f/2.8L.

http://photos.imageevent.com/johansen01/soccer/hartvarsitytournament2005/hartvsfairfax122705/Hart%2021a.jpg

[Tareq]

thats great, now anyone can decide which lens to get for sports.
there are many lenses can do great for sports, so don't stuck only with 1 or 2 choices, be wider choices better than narrowing to 1 or 2. I got 3 or 4 lens for sports, and if i need more i have that wide choice to go with;).

[genewch]

All are wonderful photos!

I'm curious too to know whether a 300 f/4 is a good lens for sports photography. If light is not dim, f/4 is good enough, I think. I like the high magnification (0.24x) of this lens too. I can carry it to the countryside to take pics for small creatures and flowers (but it's way heavy). Or, just curiosity, should I better bring a 100-400mm for this use?

[genewch]

Some update on my deal. The lens is actually from a friend of my colleague, both are photographers. The lens has a code UJ1106, so it's probably made in 1995. The condition is mint because it's seldom used. It comes with a black hard case which is not the white soft lens case in the current package. The seller could offer me at HKD6700, while a new lens costs HKD9400. It's nearly 30% off! The deal would probably be completed by the end of the month.

Are there any differences for lenses manufactured in different years (like wine?)? How does an old 70-200mm compare with recently produced ones?