So many 70-200mm Versions. Which one to buy?!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Alright, I was originally thinking about buying the 75-300mm IS, but I've seen so many threads saying that the 70-200 is way better, and seeing the pics taken with that lens, I totally believe them. So pretty much my thought now is "Ta hell with da 75-300!!!" :-) But now I have another question running through my mind.....

Which one should I buy?!?! There are like, 3 different versions of it all at different price ranges. There's like, a $500 one, a $1000 one and a $1700 one. I'm going to be buying this baby to put on either a 20D or an XT and use it for sports photography both near and far, as well as nature photography, and possibly people photography since 70mm will allow me to get close enough for portrait.

So, what's the difference between the different 70-200 lenses? Is the increase in prices worth the upgrades? Does this lens really need IS? Would the IS really make a large improvement? Because I'm going to be doing a lot of free hand shooting. I'm not a big fan of tripods. If I buy this lens, it'll probably be the only one I have for a few months. So, I don't care what the price is. I just want a really good lens to start off with.

One more question, as for the extenders, 1.4x and 2.0x.... which one is better? I would love to get the 2.0x for my new L lens, but everyone seems to use the 1.4x. Why is that? Better auto focus or something? I'm leaning towards the 2.0x because it'd be nice to have a 200 and a 400mm focal length all in one lens instead of having to buy the 100-400mm L lens, but I don't know. I'm a noob. All your suggestions will be much apprechiated. Thanks so much!

[chris.bailey]

For sport photography in low light the 70-200 2.8 is hard to beat. IS is a must if you plan to hand hold and it probably gives you two stops. The 1.4 looses 1 stop, the 2.0x 2 stops. The 1.4 works really well, the 2.0x less well.

If money is not any issue go for the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 1.4x.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sounds good! Guess I will go with the 1.4x extender. Thanks for the help. Hmmm, what about the 100-400mm IS lens? I've heard great things about that too. That good for sports and wild life just like the 70-200? Either one have faster AF than the other and what not?

[condyk]

IN TERMS OF PICTURE QUALITY THE SIGMA 70-200 f2.8 is generally considered as good as the Canon 70-200 options. Doesn't have IS, but is cheaper than the Canon F2.8 with pricing closer to the Canon F4 version. If price is an issue then I think this is a great option, one that I wish I had taken myself. The Canon F4 is a great lens but won't AF with my Kenko Pro 2x extender: the Sigma and Canon 2.8's will! Means I'm restricted to the 1.4 x.

If wildlife is your thing then the 100-400 seems like a great buy. I think generally a 400mm is the minimum for wildlife, unless you only like to photograph Elephants at the zoo :lol: :lol: You could also go for the Sigma 70-200 and 100-400 zoom or a 400mm prime with extenders ... be similar priced to the Canon F2.8 IS if you shop around, though I haven't checked.

The Canon 50mm F1.8 II is super cheap and super sharp for portraits. Awesome value :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thanks Condyk! That's very helpful.