Telephoto Lens

[pagnamenta]

Note: there's a similiar thread posted but I figured I have a specific situation...

I'm new here but not to photography. I shoot a lot of high school sports but don't own the equipment. I've been using the Canon 30/20D for the last 4 years and finally got my own.

I use a 70-200 f2.8 lens all the time for sports, but this time I'll be investing in a lens and have a budget of around $600. My main uses would be shooting soccer and some architecture in Mexico pretty soon.

That said, I'm looking at the 70-200 f4 and 70-300 IS. I really like the aspect of the IS for architectural photography and cropping, but I really don't know which lens to go with here. I like the constant f4 and the L build quality. Would the IS really do me a huge favor?

Any suggestions?

[Westbeachbc]

I just got the 70-300 IS. I'm happy with it so far, but for indoors I think it would be too dark. For action shots I'm thinking it would be better with an all-round F4 lense. The L does look to have better IQ though but to me the difference isn't huge.

I don't want to re-post so here are some threads from a few pages down:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=261493
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=261643

[LightRules]

I use a 70-200 f2.8 lens all the time for sports, but this time I'll be investing in a lens and have a budget of around $600. My main uses would be shooting soccer and some architecture in Mexico pretty soon.

That said, I'm looking at the 70-200 f4 and 70-300 IS.

Sorry but I'm unclear about what you're saying/asking. You have a 7-2f2.8 and that should be good for soccer (and you can add a 1.4xTC to it also). You also want to shoot architecture, but that would generally mean a wider lens, but you want a 7-2f4 or 7-3IS?

I'm not sure what to say given what you've said.

[PaulEY]

I had a 17-40L for architecture and had to buy a 10-22 as 17 was not wide enough at times and costing me shots I could otherwise sell, which was annoying. I don't think 70 will be wide enough for architectural shots.

[pagnamenta]

I'm going to Mexico and the 70-200/300 range would be nice to get photos of small things, like statues and what not. I've got the kit lens and it's all I can afford at the moment.

I've had experience with the 70-200 f2.8 and I'm asking to compare the f4 version to the 70-300 IS.

Thanks for the links, btw.

[Tee Why]

The 70-200 would be bigger and more conspicuous, the 70-300IS would be a little bit smaller and less conspicuous as it's black. But image quality wise, I think the L lens would be better.

[elader]

The F4L is a great lens, but the 70-300 does have IS. You decide - a little sharper, a little better color vs IS.

Neither is an indoor sports lens. The 70-200 f/4 IS NOT BIGGER than the 70-300IS. You can buy the 70-200f4 and a kenko 1.4X and get to 280mm f/5.6 quite nicely, but again, no IS.

[pagnamenta]

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll have to compare the lenses in the store before really making a decision. I like the constant aperature and the $75 rebate on the 70-200; while the IS is attractive though 5.6 is dark at 300 on the 70-300.

It just seems that most of the shots I've taken with IS come out a lot sharper, could that be true? I've used the 24-105 f4 IS and it gives me tons of cropping ability.