Could you live without your 70-200?

[namasste]

Curious how others feel. I have been trying to realign my lens lineup for a while now and it all seems to come back to this lens. I LOVE my 70-200 and it used to be glued to my camera but I find I use it less often now that I have a 300 for field sports.

With hoops season upon us, could you live without the 70-200 if you had an 85, 100, or 135? The zoom is nice for hoops but having learned to shoot a prime for the field stuff, I am sure I could figure out the prime for hoops and hockey as well.

Thoughts??

note: I ask since I am lacking on the wide end now and I would consider selling the 70-200 and 85 to fund the purchase of a 135 and possibly a walkaround like a 24-105. With a tc, the 135 should cover much of the range of the 70-200 if I ever needed it (although I don't find I shoot much in that 150-200 fl). Obviously I'd kick in a little cash too and ask Santa for a cheap UWA just for fun. Am I nuts for thinking this way?

[fslshooter]

I could live without my 70-200 -- when I do use mine, it's almost always on a second body. Personally, I prefer fixed focal length glass for sports.

[Michael_Lambert]

Nope.

I use it just about everywhere, and where its not used i typicall am using my 17-40.

[namasste]

I could live without my 70-200 -- when I do use mine, it's almost always on a second body. Personally, I prefer fixed focal length glass for sports.
interesting Jerry. I'm sure you use your long primes the most as a baseball shooter. so can I assume the 135 f2 would be a great alternative to the 70-200 f2.8? considering I can get 189 f2.8 out of it with a 1.4tc as well, it seems like I'd pick up a stop without the tc and lose nothing but a little flexibility with the tc, right?

[Dan-o]

I haven't touched mine in a month. I might this weekend doing some home coming portrait stuff on Sat. Scott I have the 24-105 and wish I had bought the 24-70. I'm addicted to 2.8 or better. :)

[fslshooter]

interesting Jerry. I'm sure you use your long primes the most as a baseball shooter. so can I assume the 135 f2 would be a great alternative to the 70-200 f2.8? considering I can get 189 f2.8 out of it with a 1.4tc as well, it seems like I'd pick up a stop without the tc and lose nothing but a little flexibility with the tc, right?

I don't think you'd find the 135 by itself a good substitute for your 70 -200. However, you might find after you're used to working with them that an 85, 135 and 300 would be suitable substitutes for your 70-200.

[Zivnuska]

No.

[namasste]

I don't think you'd find the 135 by itself a good substitute for your 70 -200. However, you might find after you're used to working with them that an 85, 135 and 300 would be suitable substitutes for your 70-200.
hmmm, since I already have the 300 and the 85....

[pwrmac]

You know, when I only had 1 body I would have definitely said NO, but now that I have 2 bodies, I could probably do without my 70-200, if I had a nice 200 or 300 prime.

[namasste]

You know, when I only had 1 body I would have definitely said NO, but now that I have 2 bodies, I could probably do without my 70-200, if I had a nice 200 or 300 prime.you may have just hit on my only real reservation...with only one body, the zoom saves many lens changes and keeps the shooter in the action. for field sports, its the long prime anyway but inside, that's a different story.

[Sledhed]

I agree with Jerry, I don't really use my 70-200/2.8 very much and I use my 85/1.8 even less. Sometimes I carry the 70-200 on a second but most times I don't. For field sports it's 400/2.8 all the time now and it's by far my most used lens.

[namasste]

I agree with Jerry, I don't really use my 70-200/2.8 very much and I use my 85/1.8 even less. Sometimes I carry the 70-200 on a second but most times I don't. For field sports it's 400/2.8 all the time now and it's by far my most used lens.agreed Chris. For field sports its a long prime (300 in my case until I can afford to buy your 400 from you before Janes :lol::lol:). My question is more for those shooting times away from the field like hoops, hockey, v-ball. It's certainly not my walkaround lens. I need something I can use for indoor sports (and everyday use too). I also need something wider for team shots, etc.

Here's what I am starting to think...

17-40 (would need to buy)
85
135 (would need to buy)
300
1.4 tc

70-200 would need to sell and add a little cash to cover the 17-40 and 135. Good move or just silliness on my part? With the Live.com cash back, this shakeup could actually happen with not much out of the wallet I think.

[scot079]

^^that's my lens line-up except add the 70-200 2.8 non IS.

For indoor sports I prefer the 2.8 zoom as long as no on complains about my off camera flashes. If I have to turn the flashes off, that's when I start using the extra stop on the primes...I'm very happy w/ my 70-200 2.8

[MJPhotos24]

I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS for one reason, a second body lens and HOCKEY as a first lens - so it serves its purposes well. Shooting NHL games I couldn't live without it, AHL I could cuz there's no holes in the glass here and I shoot from up top 99% of the time anyways. Baseball it doesn't get much use, maybe once a week or so. If I had a better second body it would get used a hellova lot more but I hate switching back and forth to the IIn.

Scott, whatever happened with that AHL team? Did you let that other guy take it or slap him outta there ;)

[namasste]

I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS for one reason, a second body lens and HOCKEY as a first lens - so it serves its purposes well. Shooting NHL games I couldn't live without it, AHL I could cuz there's no holes in the glass here and I shoot from up top 99% of the time anyways. Baseball it doesn't get much use, maybe once a week or so. If I had a better second body it would get used a hellova lot more but I hate switching back and forth to the IIn.

Scott, whatever happened with that AHL team? Did you let that other guy take it or slap him outta there ;)great point Mike. The zoom is great for hockey (and at times even a little tight at 70mm). Frankly the Tokina 50-135 or Sigma 50-150 would be better if they weren't APS-c and AF was on par with the Canon, but I diverge. Hoops and VB would be okay with the 135 but I guess it really wouldn't be a good hockey lens. I kinda dropped the AHL thing since I am going to be doing some NCAA hoops and wasn't sure I had time for both along with two gigs I have going with our local HS hockey and hoops teams. Call me tomorrow and I can give you some contact info over there. If we could tag team it, maybe it would work.

[dmwierz]

If I never shot hockey or basketball, or wrestling, or gymnastics, or......, I could do without my 70-200. In other words, no. The 70-200 is my primary lens for these sports and situations. The 400 gets the nod for field sports, but these only represent maybe half of what I shoot over the course of the year, and even for field sports (especially football), the 70-200 is WAY too handy for shots in the Red Zone (normally on a second body, but I will also swap it out on my MkIIn when the LOS is from the 20 on in).

[Tommy]

Can I live without my 70-200? Yes, I can... but it would be a dull and meaningless life....

[Zivnuska]

Can I live without my 70-200? Yes, I can... but it would be a dull and meaningless life....


:D8)8)

[namasste]

:D8)8)
yeah, I liked that too.

[namasste]

If I never shot hockey or basketball, or wrestling, or gymnastics, or......, I could do without my 70-200. In other words, no. The 70-200 is my primary lens for these sports and situations. The 400 gets the nod for field sports, but these only represent maybe half of what I shoot over the course of the year, and even for field sports (especially football), the 70-200 is WAY too handy for shots in the Red Zone (normally on a second body, but I will also swap it out on my MkIIn when the LOS is from the 20 on in).thanks Dennis. so you actually change lenses when they get down in the red zone, even with two bodies? interesting.

[dmwierz]

thanks Dennis. so you actually change lenses when they get down in the red zone, even with two bodies? interesting.

Scott -Yeah, but it depends if I have enough time to do so. My second body is a 20D and it is a distant "second", if you know what I mean. If I have enough time to disconnect my 400 from my MkIIn, set it aside, and slap the 70-200 on it, I do this. The AF is so much better, the FPS faster, etc., on the MkIIn than it is on the 20D...But, when things happen too fast, I just go with the 20D/70-200 combo and hope for the best.

One day, when I have another MkII/MkIV as a second body, I'll relegate the 20D to doing jube shots with a 24-70 on it, and weld the 70-200 to the second MkII/MkIV.

[namasste]

Scott -Yeah, but it depends if I have enough time to do so. My second body is a 20D and it is a distant "second", if you know what I mean. If I have enough time to disconnect my 400 from my MkIIn, set it aside, and slap the 70-200 on it, I do this. The AF is so much better, the FPS faster, etc., on the MkIIn than it is on the 20D...But, when things happen too fast, I just go with the 20D/70-200 combo and hope for the best.

One day, when I have another MkII/MkIV as a second body, I'll relegate the 20D to doing jube shots with a 24-70 on it, and weld the 70-200 to the second MkII/MkIV. sounds like a plan. I have resorted to simply running backwards with a big ole lens still attached unless they are moving the chains and I have a minute or two. With the flash and everything setup, its just such a pain. I do know what you mean about the 20D (30D in my case). Not knocking it as I really have liked that body and it does a nice job, but I'm spoiled by the 1 series for sure.

[dmwierz]

sounds like a plan. I have resorted to simply running backwards with a big ole lens still attached unless they are moving the chains and I have a minute or two. With the flash and everything setup, its just such a pain. I do know what you mean about the 20D (30D in my case). Not knocking it as I really have liked that body and it does a nice job, but I'm spoiled by the 1 series for sure.

You're assuming there is enough room to "run backwards" :) . Most HS fields have space (unless there are fans, or the Freshman Team, or the band, or the vidoe coaches, et al, back there) but NCAA or NFL rarely have enough room to back up that far, and if you can, a throng of people will rush in front of you to fill the sideline spot you just vacated - especially NCAA.

As far a flash (as in HS), I have two flashes - one mounted on a StroboFrame for the 400, and another camera-mounted to the second body. Yeah, I get a fair amount of red-eye on the second body, but not so much as to make post processing burdensome, especially since I rarely have more than 25-30 shots taken with the second body. No way can I swap out the 70-200 for the 400 when shooting HS because (as you highlighted) the bracket and flash are WAY too complicated to deal with.

Last week, I shot a HS football game in a downpour, and I only had rain gear for my 400/MkIIn - so I had no second body, nor did I have a chance to swap the 70-200 with the 400, and I really, really missed the 70-200 for the goal line action and for the post-game celebrations.

[namasste]

You're assuming there is enough room to "run backwards" :) . Most HS fields have space (unless there are fans, or the Freshman Team, or the band, or the vidoe coaches, et al, back there) but NCAA or NFL rarely have enough room to back up that far, and if you can, a throng of people will rush in front of you to fill the sideline spot you just vacated - especially NCAA.

As far a flash (as in HS), I have two flashes - one mounted on a StroboFrame for the 400, and another camera-mounted to the second body. Yeah, I get a fair amount of red-eye on the second body, but not so much as to make post processing burdensome, especially since I rarely have more than 25-30 shots taken with the second body. No way can I swap out the 70-200 for the 400 when shooting HS because (as you highlighted) the bracket and flash are WAY too complicated to deal with.

Last week, I shot a HS football game in a downpour, and I only had rain gear for my 400/MkIIn - so I had no second body, nor did I have a chance to swap the 70-200 with the 400, and I really, really missed the 70-200 for the goal line action and for the post-game celebrations. yeah, I hear ya on all of that. I think I am keeping the 70-200, selling the 85 and buying the 17-40 back and calling it a day. Whew! :lol:

[Dan-o]

calling it a day

tomorrow it will all change. :lol:

[primoz]

For basketball? No I couldn't live without it... literally, because I doubt I would sell much without it :) But basketball, handball and small part of ice hockey are probably only sports I couldn't survive without 70-200. With everything else, I'm fine with 300. Personally 85mm is way too short for basketball, and with action swinging so much from one side to the other, zoom is really useful.
But that's just me :)

[namasste]

tomorrow it will all change. :lol:pure evil you are!:lol:

Primoz, thanks for chiming in.

[Michael Modlin]

No - I shoot mainly rowing & rugby. Though a 300 or 400 prime would be nice some times, they would usually be too long for the perspective I like to capture. I'm usually on the starting float or in a boat for rowing so the adaptability is critical. For rugby, I like getting low and inside the scrum (being an old prop myself..) so on the ground shooting up is best. The 70->200 2.8 IS allows me to shoot from the angle and position I know the sports from, not just rely on technology to pull in distant action.

[shannyD]

no i couldnt live without it.. and i dont even have one.. but that will change soon :) i hope. ( keeping fingers crossed)

[Mike R]

For Outdoor sports, It's all I use, with a 1.4 ex for daytime. For all indoor sports, I couldn't live without my 85 f/1.8 (shoot at f./2.2) The gyms I have to shoot in are caves and they don't allow flash.

[MDteX]

For basketball? No I couldn't live without it... literally, because I doubt I would sell much without it :) But basketball, handball and small part of ice hockey are probably only sports I couldn't survive without 70-200. With everything else, I'm fine with 300. Personally 85mm is way too short for basketball, and with action swinging so much from one side to the other, zoom is really useful.
But that's just me :)


Sounds like me. I use the 70-200 almost exclusively when I do basketball, hockey or volleyball. The 300 and TC are for field sports but I have used it on occasion for the indoors sports. Outside I have one body with the 300 and one with the 70-200. Inside I will have the 70-200 on one and the 24-70 on the other.

My 85 doesn't see much but the inside of my camera bag.

So no I couldn't live without my 70-200.

[namasste]

I've decided the same. Its so easy to neglect it during good weather where shooting is all outdoors and the long glass gets all the work. On the flip, winter is here and its all about inside now (Ill probably wonder if I can live without the 300 in a few months :lol:).

I decided to sell the 85 and I repurchased the 17-40, kept the tc, 70-200, and 300 and I think that should do me right.

[pastanley]

nope

[SwiftFootTim]

I find way too much use for my 70-200 at night to get rid of it, but this also takes into account that I can't sell my Jeep to pay for a 300 f/2.8!

[cwphoto]

I use it less and less every year but can't bring myself to sell it. :confused:

[mackidbrendan]

why dont you just take away my soul if you take my 70-200 2.8IS
i would be lost without it. my 40D would be nude.

but i would trade it for a 300 2.8IS :D, maybee

[namasste]

why dont you just take away my soul if you take my 70-200 2.8IS
i would be lost without it. my 40D would be nude.

but i would trade it for a 300 2.8IS :D, maybee
different tools for sure but I bet you would too!:lol:

[Dan-o]

Well That is pretty much Scotts reason for starting the thread. While I would never sell my 70-200 I haven't used it in months since getting the 300.

[namasste]

Well That is pretty much Scotts reason for starting the thread. While I would never sell my 70-200 I haven't used it in months since getting the 300.I haven't either and you're right. OTOH, I start hoops next weekend and I bet the 300 sees less time than the 70-200 now that I have read the replies and really thought it through.

[nickybegood1998]

Personally I cannot as this is the only long lens that I have and I use it to shoot my boys soccer games. I'd love to have something a bit longer but really can't afford it.

Karman

[namasste]

Personally I cannot as this is the only long lens that I have and I use it to shoot my boys soccer games. I'd love to have something a bit longer but really can't afford it.

Karman
Karman, consider adding the 1.4 TC. You can find them pretty cheap if you really look around and they'll really add some nice reach to that 70-200. I've shot many events with that combo before the long prime and it really handles the TC well.

[nickybegood1998]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the tip on the 1.4 TC. I actually have one but I haven't had much success using it. My pictures come out softer than normal when I use it and it just frustrates me to all heck. My problem is I'm never willing to waste a game or two of pics using it trying to get it right. I'd really like to use it though.

[Dan-o]

My problem is I'm never willing to waste a game or two of pics using it trying to get it right.

When ever I'm having issues or getting used to a new lens I'll go to my daughters soccer practice and practice.

[namasste]

When ever I'm having issues or getting used to a new lens I'll go to my daughters soccer practice and practice.great advice. I do the same because I feel the same. I don't want/can't waste a game sorting things out.

[CanadianKitKat]

While I'm sure I'd keep breathing without it, not sure I'd want to...... ;-)

[tadrscin]

Have you considered the Sigma 120-300 f2.8? I know you already have a 300 f2.8 and I don't know first hand how they compare IQ wise, but it's been highly recommend by quite a few people, including Dennis IIRC. In the short time I've had the 120-300, I can see only using the 70-200 on a 2nd body now. I used it the other night shooting some indoor soccer and it's a great lens for that. It's a bit too long for shooting action right in front of me, other than that it's great. I am going to try my 135 f2.0 soon and either just shoot the near goal all night or maybe bring 2 lenses. I can't wait to shoot a hockey game with it. I can see using a 1.4 on it for outdoor sports and then the 70-200 (should you keep it) on a 2nd body. That would give you a 70-200 and a 168-420 which would be pretty nice. You mentioned having a 30D as well so you could use this setup. You're right that a 30D is not a 1 series, but as I'm sure you'd agree, it's no slouch either. Anyway, just something else to consider.