70-200mm vs 70-300mm all around lense for sports,etc.

[rangersvtsplash]

for a second lense other than the kit one 17mm-85mm is from a 40d. what would ya guys consider for choose? the 70mm-200mm L usm IS autofocus or the 70mm-300mm L usm IS. also need to consider is if i really need to go down to the f2.8 on the 40d? think the f4 be ok? cost is a consideration so i dont want to go out to far from over 1000.00. if i able to get them used maybe long shot highly doubfull. like i said i like to have it to buy as second lense cause im not really that good for sports and action and want something for the sports,motorsports that i can use the telezoom to capture pics from a distance away.

[MaDProFF]

The 70-300 is not an L it is a DO.
The term all round sport, is a but loose.

But the best one for indoor (bit areana), and small field out door for sure is the 70-200 2.8, very very good quick AF, (this Lens is great for everything except it is heavy to use) I would get the 1-4 TC as well, though cost adds up to more than 1000.00

For me the best is 100-400L for outdoor Large field sports like Football etc.

I have no experience over the 70-300, but it is same speed as the 100-400, so for me that is a better choice.

[tekkie]

there are 2 different 70-300 IS lenses neither are L, the DO one is the more expensive and better one

there are 4 different 70-200's, the F4 non IS and IS, the 2.8 IS and non IS

I had the 70-300 (non DO) and at 300 its fairly soft, the 70-200 with a 1.4x TC will probably give you better results for the long range but from 70-200 for sure the 70-200 is better

I would say get the F4 one if you dont want to cash out for the 2.8 :)

[rangersvtsplash]

great help guys did not realize that the 70-300 did not come in l sorry still to new at all this, my first choose was the 70-200mm. i think if i can afford the 2.8 i try to head that route, im still waiting on my camera to come in but just researching what i want for a second lense for those shots.

thanx

[Mike R]

I shoot sports with a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS, with a 1.4x TC. However, the lighting is terrible at night football games and I need to drop the TC to gain the stop back, f/2.8 is needed at night games along with raising the ISO ( at times I'm as high as 1600 which is the highest my body goes) and adding flash after a certain hour. 70-200 is the minimum for football and at times it's a little short,what helps is that I have access to the sidelines and end zones. At other times the 70mm has mad it possible for me to get shots that I was close to. I feel that a 300mm f/2.8 is too high priced to justify it for HS sports.

For sports, you do not need IS, That is good when there is not much motion in the subject, but for sports you need to use faster shutter speeds to freeze the action.

[Mrvile]

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is also another performance lens to consider and can be had for well under $1000.

[EORI]

The 70~200 f/2.8IS is a terrific sports lens. Even when used in combination with the 1.4x tc, the image quality is exceptional, and it's f/4 wide open. The auto focus speed is not noticeably diminished with the tc.

On my full-frame 5D, however, this combination only extends out to 280mm, which can be too short, especially if I'm taking pictures from the spectator seats. Here's a 100% cropped image from the recent Monterey Historics race.

http://eori.smugmug.com/photos/191333969-L.jpg

[rangersvtsplash]

ok seems to me that the right choose would be the 70mm-200mm in the f2.8 not the f4. dont ya need the IS? seems sports are moving subjects? also insted of the 1.4X can it be used on the 2.0X? oh im not too lucky to get good seats right on the edge of games so woundering if i am going to loose out on that aspect

[ibdb]

I have the 70-300 IS, and a 70-200 f/4, as well as a 100-400 IS. They serve three distinct purposes for me -- travel, close in sports and general action, and long range.

The 70-300 IS (non-DO) is an excellent all around telephoto zoom. Image quality at 300mm is very good. When talking about sports, however, where it really suffers in regards to comparisons with the 70-200 lenses is in focus speed. I'm a bit of a blasphemer to say the the image quality of the 70-300 compares well with the 70-200s in many regards, but the difference in focus speed is probably a deal breaker when you're talking about a "sports" lens.

With $ a concern, I'd probably recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS. Image quality is second to none, focus speed is great, and you've got a camera than can handle high ISO settings. There's no denying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a heavyweight lens -- but that's part of the problem; heavy price, heavy weight, heavy size. I also find the IS to be valuable, even shooting sports, and particularly if you're looking for a multitasking lens.

The biggest losses with the -200s in comparison to the -300 are in price and reach. I'm not sure how far away you'll be from the action, but -200 isn't nearly as long as I found myself wanting at times, which is why I have another heavy lifter in my bag now, the 100-400.

[italypa99]

70-200 2.8 with 1.4X is the best ^^

[Mike R]

ok seems to me that the right choose would be the 70mm-200mm in the f2.8 not the f4. dont ya need the IS? seems sports are moving subjects?

IS is to help with camera shake while hand holding the camera, I think that Canon even says not to use it if the camera is on a tripod. The concept is so you can use the lens,hand held at slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting a football game, you need a faster shutter speed so that you can "freeze" a running player. IS willl not do this.

[ibdb]

Rereading one of your later posts -- in many (maybe most) cases, you won't get into an event with a big, white 70-200 unless you're credentialed. Taking one into your seats in the stands is prohibited at many arenas/stadiums/etc. In those places, the 70-300 lenses, though of a longer focal length, are more stealthy and likely to get a pass from the people checking your bags.

If you're looking to shoot at one location in particular, you may want to check what their policies are.

[rangersvtsplash]

i see ya point, i not sure why they dont allow such things in these arenas as baseball,hockey,basketball games guess they just dont want to have people get the perfect pics. i guess i see ya point where ya can hide way up and still get the action.



Rereading one of your later posts -- in many (maybe most) cases, you won't get into an event with a big, white 70-200 unless you're credentialed. Taking one into your seats in the stands is prohibited at many arenas/stadiums/etc. In those places, the 70-300 lenses, though of a longer focal length, are more stealthy and likely to get a pass from the people checking your bags.

If you're looking to shoot at one location in particular, you may want to check what their policies are.

[Mike R]

I went to an Orioles baseball game and had to open m camera bag. They saw the camera and let me enter. It was a Lowepro toploader bag. They didn't see the 70-200 2.8 attached to it. Once in my seat I was not bothered.

[rangersvtsplash]

guess when they see the big white lense they must think ya a reporter or someone thats going to take bad pics of them.

[DAMphyne]

In any case, when shooting hand-held, it's better to us the IS.
Sports included.

[youming]

Hi, I use 70-200/4L IS lens for sport shot. If lighting condition is good, the result is very good, but if at night game, the ISO need set up to 1600. I have also try F2.8 lens, it is a bit soft compare with 4L/IS and also too heavy if carry with you 2-3 hours. I have attached two images with using 70-200 at day and night game.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x6/luyouming/Aviva-Ironman-2007-33.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x6/luyouming/1-1.jpg