Need Advise On Zoom Lens for Sports

[WMB]

Recently Purchase the 300D, My first DSLR. My objective is to shoot pics for my daughter's High School Varsity Soccer Team. It has been her life long dream to play varsity. I am looking at the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS or the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L.

I will be shooting some games under stadium lights at night. Do I need the IS or can I get by with the second lens with a monopod. Or is there another lens I should be looking at? Was told the 70-200 L series was the best.

Found your forum today and am quite pleased with what I saw, just registered. Thank you in advance for any helpful information.

[Alan Dye]

Welcome aboard! I also have a DReb that I use for sports (for the time being). Depending on your budget, You may want to look into the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM. It's a little less pricey than the Canon version, but very comperable optics and speed. If $$$ isn't an issue. Go with the Canon "L" lens.

[tim]

Here's a review (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html) of some of the lenses you're considering. If you can use a tripod/monopod all the time then don't worry about IS. I've used the 70-200 F2.8L IS once for about ten minutes, it's pretty damn heavy, so i'd want a monopod at least and would almost never hand hold it. You won't go wrong with a Canon L lens, they're some of the best lenses made, but the Sigma has a very good reputation and it's quite a lot cheaper.

[WMB]

Thanks Tim for the reply, the review was great, some pics in the link would not show but the written info was great. I plan to use a mono pod. Might do some protrait work so maybe the IS would help. New Zeeland is my ultimate destiney some day. Thanks Bill

[CyberDyneSystems]

Did you take a look at the -=TOP 10=- Recomended lenses polls? There are sports lens recomendations there ;)

[KevC]

Stadiums are REALLY poorly lit. Since our eyes are awesome at picking up light, it doesn't seem dim at all. However, when you want to freeze motion, or even handhold, it's very difficult.

I'd say go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS if you can. But definitely get a tripod. Also, pick up the 85/1.8. It costs next to nothing compared to the 70-200IS but is faster and produces beautiful bokeh. Also, you can use it for beautiful portraits. They call it the "Indoor Basketball lens".

Of course, a soccer field is way bigger than a football one so I don't know if there's anywhere near enough reach. It's too bad that you have the 300D, if you had the 350D or 20D then high ISOs would be less noisy. However, don't be afraid to bump up your ISO. A noisy shot is way better than a blurry (read: useless) one. Today's noise reduction software is pretty awesome.

[WMB]

Did you take a look at the -=TOP 10=- Recomended lenses polls? There are sports lens recomendations there ;)
Thanks CDS, I read the Top 10 Poll, they had great input. Bill

[WMB]

Stadiums are REALLY poorly lit. Since our eyes are awesome at picking up light, it doesn't seem dim at all. However, when you want to freeze motion, or even handhold, it's very difficult.

I'd say go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS if you can. But definitely get a tripod. Also, pick up the 85/1.8. It costs next to nothing compared to the 70-200IS but is faster and produces beautiful bokeh. Also, you can use it for beautiful portraits. They call it the "Indoor Basketball lens".

Of course, a soccer field is way bigger than a football one so I don't know if there's anywhere near enough reach. It's too bad that you have the 300D, if you had the 350D or 20D then high ISOs would be less noisy. However, don't be afraid to bump up your ISO. A noisy shot is way better than a blurry (read: useless) one. Today's noise reduction software is pretty awesome.
Thanks for the input, it all helps when you are looking at spending that kind of Fresh ($).