I have the 70-200 f/4L but...

[lost]

I have had the 70-200 f/4L for about 2 months now and it has given me wonderful pictures. I am starting to take pictures of sports at night and the f/4 is very limiting.

I would like to step up to a 2.8 but am not sure which lens gives the best bang for the buck. Budget is somewhat of a concern and I do not want to spend money on something I will be unhappy with in a couple months. So does that rule out the Sigma? IS is out of my budget for now.

Has anyone else been in this situation? What did you do? Did you regret it? Will my marraige survive another L lens?:rolleyes:

Thanks for the info.

Buddy

[roanjohn]

Did you consider the 400 f2.8 L IS??

If not, there are cheaper alternatives......i.e.......200 f2.8 OR 85 f1.8/100 f2 for indoor sports. By comparing these lenses to the above lens, you'll realize that you have a real bargain in your hands!!!! Smart huh??

Ro1

[lost]

Roanjohn,

Yes I would love the 400 F2.8 but unless Sports Illustrated starts buying High School sports pictures I think that is out of the question. :)

I did not clarify that I am looking for a zoom lens. The 70-200 is good enough (with some cropping). I really need to be able to get bigger than f/4 to capture the action under stadium lights. I was really comparing the Sigma 70-200 2.8 to the Canon 70-200 2.8 or the Older 80-200 2.8L.

Any thougt on this? Am I missing anything?

[intechpcx]

Given the parameters you've stated and the assumption that you want quality on par with your present L lens, I think the Sigma APO 70-200 and the Canon 70-200L are the only real competitors in your evaluation. Price wise, the Sigma is significantly cheaper than the Canon L. You can pickup a good condition Sigma used for around $650US and less than $800 for a brand new one. The Canon you'll be lucky to find anywhere for less than $1100 used and even more for a new one.

I just got the Sigma last week and have taken about 300 pictures with it so far. I'm pretty happy with the quality. I researched both lenses and found that at wide open f/2.8, the Canon is a little sharper than the Sigma. The Sigma's sharpness surpasses the Canon in the mid range (f4-f11) and above that they're both pretty comparable. A guy I work with has the 70-200L and was pretty impressed when he saw my Sigma. Both lenses are very well built and controls are smooth and tight. I've heard some say that the Focus performance on the Sigma is slower, however I've compared the two side by side and couldn't detect any difference. Honestly, I haven't been disappointed by my Sigma yet, but I haven't been using it very long. There are a couple of side-by-side comparissons of the lenses out there, if you search the forums you should find links to them.

I hope this is the type of information you're looking for. Hopefully it will help out.

[lost]

Thanks intechpcx,

Do you have any examples taken in low light at 2.8 with the sigma? My only concern is I dont want to step down from the L quality, wether or not it has a red ring on it(if you know what I mean).

Buddy

[rdenney]

I have had the 70-200 f/4L for about 2 months now and it has given me wonderful pictures. I am starting to take pictures of sports at night and the f/4 is very limiting.


You have already had your primary question answered, so I'll ask your indulgence to ask a question aimed differently than you intended.

What ISO are you using?

Doubling your ISO has the same effect as opening up a stop. If you are using 400, try 800. You'll get a little more noise, but you might find you can control that with something like NeatImage, for a lot less money than replacing your lens. Most places that print images of high-school sports (excepting perhaps the yearbook) aren't high enough quality to tell the different anyway.

Of course, if you are already using 800, then the move to 1600 might go too far.

If you do replace your lens, I would consider a lens with image stabilization. That would give you more than one stop in practical terms. It would be more like two or three stops. It would be expensive, but not as expensive, for what you get, as paying half as much for just one more stop. You have said this is out of your budget, and that's why I'm thinking you're better off getting that stop from your ISO setting and saving the money for later when can add to it and really improve your capabilities.

Rick "who has been 'saving' for the 100-400L for about two years, now" Denney

[lost]

Thanks Rick,

I this is my usual setup. Hardware - Digital Rebel, 70-200 f/4 Settings AV Mode, 4.0, ISO 800, Shutter speed tends to be around 1/125th (too slow). If I bump the ISO up to 1600 I can get 1/160th but a good deal of noise. Unless I am missing something I am doing all that I can to get good action shots. Correct me PLEASE and save me some money. I may wait a little longer for the IS but it depends on my ability to stay away from B&H :)

[intechpcx]

Thanks intechpcx,

Do you have any examples taken in low light at 2.8 with the sigma? My only concern is I dont want to step down from the L quality, wether or not it has a red ring on it(if you know what I mean).

Buddy

I should have some available tonight after I post them to the web. I took about 180 shots last night at my daughter's little league players clinic. I'll be posting about 40 of them to the web, I believe all the one's I'm posting were taken with the Sigma, I'll make sure there are some examples with the lens at f/2.8.

[gasrocks]

All good suggestions. My take - I'd dislike spending twice the $ to gain 1 f/stop (the 70-200/4 vs. 70-200/2.8) Between a monopod, and running up the ISO, I think I could make the f/4 work. If not, get the 135/2 L. Quality, great for other things and with the 1.4x (you were going to get a 1.4x someday anyway,) it's about 200/2.8 I have heard of many people trading in their 70-200 after getting the 135/2 because they didn't use the zoom anymore. Depends on how you are using that zoom now. Do you need a zoom?

[rdenney]

Thanks Rick,

I this is my usual setup. Hardware - Digital Rebel, 70-200 f/4 Settings AV Mode, 4.0, ISO 800, Shutter speed tends to be around 1/125th (too slow). If I bump the ISO up to 1600 I can get 1/160th but a good deal of noise. Unless I am missing something I am doing all that I can to get good action shots. Correct me PLEASE and save me some money. I may wait a little longer for the IS but it depends on my ability to stay away from B&H :)

If you bumped all the way to 1600, you should be able to get 1/250, if you are getting 1/125 at ISO 800.

All I'm saying is that spending your money all over again just for one stop seems hardly worth it. If you are going to spend money, it may be wiser to spend more on a lens that gets you significantly more capability, even if it means waiting.

In the meantime, take a look at NeatImage and see if it can clean your your ISO 1600 shots well enough to meet your requirements.

Overall I understand exactly what you are going through. I took some pictures of my wife's nephew who was playing pro baseball in the minor leagues a couple of year ago. I was using the 70-200/4L with a 1.4 converter. My exposures were quite similar to yours. I could not avoid motion blur at shutter speeds below about 1/500. By the end of the game, I was shooting at ISO 1600 (the noise was not at all objectionable, by the way--I just looked at the images again), and getting exposures of 1/125 to 1/180 at 280mm focal length. I did not have a monopod, and was using my knees as a tripod. It did not work, and the images were quite smeary. My point is that getting 1/180 instead of 1/125 isn't enough to solve the problem. I didn't need a stop, I needed three stops, or a stop plus IS. You'll go out and spend the same money you've already spent on a 2.8 lens, and still possibly not solve your problem.

Rick "who thinks pro sports photog gear is quite specialized for a reason" Denney

[intechpcx]

OK, so here are the shots. Keep in mind a few things as you look at these.

1. All four were shot within about 10 minutes of eachother so the light didn't change much between shots. It was about 7:20pm so the sun was pretty low in the sky (I'd call it dusk, the official sunset was 7:33 pm so that should give you an idea of the light coniditions).

2. The first two were shot Hand-Held in a standing position, the second two hand-held while sitting. Image quality would probably improve a little from having some sort of rest or monopod.

4. All were shot on Aperture Priority mode.

3. This was my first ever attempt at shooting batters and I've only had the lens a week so it was a learning process for both.

I don't know if you have an Exif viewer so I've posted the deatils for each. You'll notice I could have squeezed more exposure out of them by adjusting the ISO levels or moving up a 1/2 stop on the aperture. You'll see that from 1/200-1/250 there is a big difference in the amount of motion blur (something I learned for next time).

http://64.74.200.169/Photos/2005PlayersClinic/batting_005.jpg
ISO: 200, Shutter: 1/250, Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 126mm

http://64.74.200.169/Photos/2005PlayersClinic/batting_006.jpg
ISO: 800, Shutter: 1/800, Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 126mm

http://64.74.200.169/Photos/2005PlayersClinic/batting_009.jpg
ISO: 400, Shutter: 1/200, Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 117mm

http://64.74.200.169/Photos/2005PlayersClinic/batting_010.jpg
ISO: 400, Shutter: 1/200, Aperture: f/2.8, Focal Length: 110mm

Hope the pictures help. Also if anyone wants to offer critiques feel free.

[ducdubbq]

the one thing is. the sigma might really do the job and do it well. but by all accounts the canon 70-200 2.8 is perhaps their best lens. i have never read anyone who didn't call it in some way spectacular.

so yes its more money. maybe double the money. but when its the best a company makes its probably worth saving a bit longer to get it. esp since the lens is cheaper than a 20d upgrade or another dslr.

i have the 70-200/4 and find it to be fine for my needs (actually i think its great and the 2.8 would be too heavy for me to handhold and carry around) but getting the sigma always feels like settleing. getting that honda when what i really want is a ferrari.

[rdenney]

OK, so here are the shots.

You did lots better than me. My anticipation was off and I never got the ball in the picture, except for this where he fouled it off. Of course, even in the minors those pitches go fast. I've attached my best result (technically, at least). Shutter speed was 1/180. Focal length was 252 on the 70-200/4L plus 1.4 converter. Aperture was wide open (5.6 on that combination). You can tell from the catcher's mitt that it wasn't a focus problem--it was a subject motion problem. Even at this resolution, you can see it. I would have preferred to be behind the pitcher, of course. But they wanted me to wear a black suit and get yelled at lots to get that spot.

In the other picture, it was earlier when there was daylight. Shutter speed was 1/500, but everything else was the same. ISO 800 in both.

Rick "no sports photographer" Denney

[lost]

Thanks for the pics. Here is the gallery of mine. Some are better than others.

http://www.btoups.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=22&pass=public&lang=eng

The way I shoot batter shots is, Keep both eyes open and you can see when the pitcher is in his wind-up. A fraction of a second after he pitches you click the shutter and there it is. I must also say that I am left handed so this works for me from the 1st base line but not the 3rd. Oposite would be true for right handers.

Buddy