1 lens for sports, 70-200 f4L the right one

[Paul_B]

Still learning how to properly use this digital rebel. Long list of things I need. So I'll be buying just one lens, and no others till I get other list of things I really need.

I've done my share of reading here on this lens and the rebel. I've found out that the rebel my not be the best choice for sports since finding this forum. But I'm gonna have to make do. I hadn't found this forum until after purchasing the camera. I would like to be sure on the lens.

I got the camera with the main focus being on my Daughters soccer games. I have the kit lens with it.
Learning to use the camera and using the kit lens, I've found I enjoy taking all kinds of pictures, outdoors, the kids....everything.
Would the 70-200 f4L be a good all round lens for sports and a little of everything else.
My wife has asked me to be sure of the choice as it's gonna be the only one for some time. Plus I'm in doo doo if I don't take nice soccer photos with it.
I'd be willing to spend a little more if there is a better choice.
I get stuck on a product and don't see anthing else, I have this lens stuck in my head. Have I made a good choice.
Thanks for any advice on this.

My list of toys since getting the camera is getting very large, and it's very addictive. But I'm enjoying it.

[defordphoto]

The 70-200 is a bit short. The 100-400 is a better choice, but yes, more money. The 400 prime is too restrictive if you have only one body.

[Paul_B]

CANON EF 70-200 F4 L ZOOM LENS $949.99

CANON EF 100-400MM/4.5-5.6L IS USM $2139.99

wow, had a quick look of a review of it, sounded great till I saw the price. Thats a little out of my budget, and it's more than double. Thanks tho.
They are Canadian prices from Henrys.

Have to wait for the wife to be in very good humor before mentioning that one :shock:

[defordphoto]

Or settle for a Sigma comparative. Even the 70-200 with the 1.4TC is still too short for anything but the closer-up shots.

[pcasciola]

I had considered the 70-200 f/4L, but decided 200mm was too short, so I went with the 300mm f/4L IS. It's not as expensive as the 100-400, but it's a full stop faster which will help you isolate your subject a little better. You can also get a 1.4x TC for it that will make it a 400mm f/5.6. It's about $1100 at B&H now, which is still about $500 more than you can get the 70-200 F/4L for mail order.

Here are a couple of shots I did of pee wee football with it last month:

Pee Wee football #1 (http://www.casciola.com/pics/10-17-2004a.jpg)
Pee Wee football #2 (http://www.casciola.com/pics/Eagles3.jpg)

Those were actually cropped too, so you can see how 200mm would probably not be enough for soccer. If you're interested, I can post the unedited pics so you can get a better idea of what 300mm will get you.

[roanjohn]

Isn't there a Sigma 100-300 f4?? Have you looked into that??

The 70-200 being too short is trivial. Some sports, if you're close to the action, the 70-200 should be fine.

Ro1

[Paul_B]

thanks, I'll look into that one. I don't see a review of it at my usual check up site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
but I'll read up on it here.

I'm new at this, and I haven't even seen through a lens of 200, 300, 400. I guess 200 sounded like it was enough to me.

[roanjohn]

Here you go!!!

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&thecat=29

:D

Ro1

[Headcase650]

Another Review
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx

[Paul_B]

Sigma 100-300 f4

This one sounds great, not to much more.
Glad I asked, some others to look at now.
thanks

[Headcase650]

Check around, sigma prices have been jumpy lately, last week adorama had sigma 70-200 2.8 for $680 USD now they are out of stock and the price is back to $799.

[LarryB]

For what it's worth.......

I would suggest the Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8L plus a 1.4x converter. This would give you the extra stop on the lens when used by itself. This could come in very handy.

With the 1.4x converter attached, you would have a 98-280 ƒ4....very close to the 100-300 ƒ4 but with options. Plus, Canon equipment on Canon equipment is generally the preferred route.

[Headcase650]

How much money in USD do you want to spend. If its around $1000 then you might want to check this out

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=38503458 10&tc=photo

Its longer, slightly slower but has OS (sigmas version of IS)

[timmyquest]

The 70-200 is a bit short. The 100-400 is a better choice, but yes, more money. The 400 prime is too restrictive if you have only one body.

I agree but it really depends on the sport. I had no intention of getting the 70-200 but i quickly realized that for night football games f/5.6 was hardly enough.

Due to that, i went with the 70-200 f/2.8

For next baseball/softball season, and girls soccer season, i hope to have the 100-400.

So, somehow i'll end up with both :?

[GenEOS]

For sports, especially if you are shooting any night sports, the 70-200 f2.8 will give you the absolute most bang for your bucks. For day time, add a 1.4x.

With 1.6 crop factors and 8+ mega pixels, you have the lattitude to crop your images pretty tight and not loose detail and sharpness.

If you are shooting daytime sports, and f4-5.6 lens may be OK.

I would not buy a 100-400 4.5-5.6, in retrospect. I would have went for the 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4x first and save for big fast glass.

[ScottE]

I've use a Sigma 50-500 a lot for sports. It is best when there is good light, but can be a little slow if the light is dim. (On those days I use a 70-200/2.8 Canon.) The longer focal length of the 50-500 lets you zoom in for better close-ups than the 70-200. Be aware that it is a big heavy lens. I don't mind hand holding it at events, but some people find it a problem. It is a good idea to learn to use a tripod or monopod anyway.

Image quality with the 50-500 is more than adequate. I have had its pictures published in a calendar, magazines (including a two page centre fold) and the front cover of a telephone directory.

[CoolToolGuy]

I second the motion for the EF 70-200 f4L along with the Canon Extender 1.4x. This combo gives you the greatest flexibility with a constrained budget.

Have Fun,

[Cadwell]

The 70-200 f/4L is a fantastic lens. It focuses extremely quickly and accurately and the optics and build quality are top-notch.

Using the the 1.4x TC doesn't hurt the quality noticeably and gives a bit of extra reach.

I'd still like something a little longer for "soccer" though...

[gmen]

As some have said before, I'd think very seriously about the extra stop you'll gain with a f/2.8 lens.

It might be worth saving up a bit longer to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x converter rather than the f/4 version.

Even shooting daytime sports, the f/2.8 lens will give you an advantage and serve you better. Here are a few reasons why I think so:

1. You will get better background blur, isolating the subject matter more effectively.
2. Last weekend, I was shooting under heavily overcast conditions (not at night) and was already using 1/500s at f/2.8 at 1600ASA. An f/4 lens would leave you at a disadvantage in these circumstances.
3. You will be very lucky to be able to shoot any floodlit sports at all with an f/4 lens - the difference between working at, say, 1/250s and 1/500s is huge when it comes to freezing the action.
4. The f/2.8 lens will focus faster than the f/4 lens when the light is starting to fail.
5. You can pop on the converter and have a nice 98-280mm f/4 lens when the lighting is OK.

If you don't go for the IS version of the f/2.8 (which won't help you with action sports anyway), then you should be able to pick up used one for a reasonable price.

I hope you get the lens you need!

[schmoelzel]

Hello:

I have this awesome lens and I really feel that you can get good shots (sports) with a little effort. Here is one of a friends' daughter playing soccer a few months back..........cropped and a little USM; that's it!! I think this lens is one of Canon's best-kept secrets!!

Shutter speed: 1/800 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Exposure mode: Sport
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous
ISO: 400
Lens: 70.0 to 200.0 mm
Focal length: 200.0mm
Subject distance: 30 m
AF mode: AI Servo AF

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/DRebelPix/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/Soccer.jpg

[defordphoto]

The 70-200 is a bit short. The 100-400 is a better choice, but yes, more money. The 400 prime is too restrictive if you have only one body.

I agree but it really depends on the sport. I had no intention of getting the 70-200 but i quickly realized that for night football games f/5.6 was hardly enough.

Due to that, i went with the 70-200 f/2.8

For next baseball/softball season, and girls soccer season, i hope to have the 100-400.

So, somehow i'll end up with both :?

Paul was speaking of daytime soccer. The 100-400 is an excellent choice and, of course, the 70-200 2.8 would be better for nighttime shooting. No brain surgery there.

Paul also mentioned a strict budget, after my mentioning the 100-400, and so the 70-200 2.8 would (also) not fit into that category.

So, Paul's options are if he wants Canon, then go with the 70-200 f/4 and a 1.4TC and just expect to run around the field or wait for the action to come to him, or to settle for something non-Canon.

[Paul_B]

I've had my heart set on the 70-200 f4L for it's price/quality, and it's hard to find anyone saying anything on the negative side with this lens.I also have read many times how great the "L" lenses are. I'm happy with the shots I've printed with the kit lens, can't wait to see what L lens can do. Most options suggested here do sound better, it's just price is higher. Maybe I will hold out a little longer.

Yes, all of her games have been daytime/outdoor games. (some indoor tournaments in winter)

I'm going to look over all the lens listed here, have the wife read over this thread and decide how much/high we want to go.

Thanks everyone for the different choices here and opinions.

[defordphoto]

Paul: The 70-200 f/4 is a very good lens. One of the best bangs for the buck when it comes to L glass. You will not be disappointed if you decide on this lens. It will be a little short for full-field soccer shooting, but with a little...okay, alot of legwork, you will get some awesome shots. Guaranteed.