Can't decide between these two lenses???

[43 North]

So I have an interest in doing some sports type photography. It would include outdoor football and indoor basketball. Also some motorsports stuff mixed in.

I am kind of budget limited on a lens. I have it narrowed down in my mind between the 70-200 f/4L or the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

So do I pick the L series lens or the one with greater zoom and Image Stabilization?

[Scott V]

Neither lens will be good indoors unless there is tremendous light source. I shoot indoors with a 135mm f/2 and a 85mm 1.8, both relatively "cheap" and great quality pics! Outdoors for motos, either lens is good. I tend to turn off my is on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, because it really only helps with camera shake and not with motion blur. Invest in a good mono-pod, know your terrain, find a stable spot to get a few different angles and click away! Try to shoot in AV mode at the widest you can so that the camera will pick a faster speed(shutter) enabling you to stop the action. Hope this helps...Good Luck and good shooting!

[43 North]

Great info guys. Now when you mention using the 85mm lens could you put a Canon EF 2x extender on it to get close in? Would this be a viable option for indoor stuff?

[clarence]

I have it narrowed down in my mind between the 70-200 f/4L or the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

So do I pick the L series lens or the one with greater zoom and Image Stabilization?

I was in the same scenario a couple of years ago...

I had the 70-300 IS and thought I'd "upgrade" to the 70-200/4L non-IS... turned out I missed the 300mm more than I expected and the f/4 wasn't a huge improvement over the f/4-5.6 (both need good light).

The 70-300 IS was also black and <6"... more stealthy than the white L lenses and allowable in most sports arenas... for example, the 70-300 IS is allowed in Nationals Park (MLB), but the 70-200/4L isn't.

Anyways, I was never really thrilled with the 70-200/4L non-IS. So I sold it and bought a new 70-200/4L IS. Much better. Loved this lens. Probably just a sharper copy... IS doesn't really help you much at high shutter speeds.

So when I started taking more sports photos, I traded the 70-200/4L IS for 70-200/2.8L non-IS. Much better... I use the f/2.8 much more than I use the IS.

70-200/2.8L (1/1000", f/2.8, 200mm, ISO 3200)
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4498/locophoto570.jpg

Anyways... point of the story is that since you mentioned sports, for outdoor sports, go for the 300mm.

For ambient indoor sports (VB, BB), neither lens is ideal (f/4 and f/5.6 are too slow)... consider the 85/1.8...
85/1.8 (1/1250", f/1.8, 85mm, ISO 2500)
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5400/locophoto599.jpg

[Scott V]

Great info guys. Now when you mention using the 85mm lens could you put a Canon EF 2x extender on it to get close in? Would this be a viable option for indoor stuff? No. Basketball/volleyball are fast moving sports...adding extenders slows the camera down to "unusable" speeds by narrowing the aperature by 2 stops. You sre better off with the fixed focal legnths or "prime" lenses like the 85mm or even the 135 f/2. It really depends on just how close you can ge to the action. from the baseline/sidelines, the aforementioned are GREAT, from the stands, your price range goes way up!!! 70-200L 2.8 (highest you want to go with aperature) lists for around $1700.00!!!

[clarence]

I edited my post to include some examples and the order got mixed up

Great info guys. Now when you mention using the 85mm lens could you put a Canon EF 2x extender on it to get close in? Would this be a viable option for indoor stuff?

The 2x TC takes away 2 stops, so f/4 lens becomes f/8.
The 1.4 TX takes 1 stop, so f/4 becomes f/5.6

On the 85/1.8, the 2x TC would give you 170mm f/3.5

The teleconverters also take away AF performance and picture quality, plus you have to factor in the cost.

A used 70-200/2.8 sells for $900-1000.
IIRC, Amazon sells it new for ~$1200.

[Gatorboy]

Great info guys. Now when you mention using the 85mm lens could you put a Canon EF 2x extender on it to get close in?

Sorry, the 1.4x or 2x won't work on an 85 f/1.8

[43 North]

Sorry, the 1.4x or 2x won't work on an 85 f/1.8

Yeah I was just reading about the extenders, I totally see why you don't want to use them.

I like the idea of the 85mm 1.8 based on cost factor and it would double as a great portrait lens.

[clarence]

Sorry, the 1.4x or 2x won't work on an 85 f/1.8

Well, there are a lot of combinations that work and a lot of permutations that don't work.

Depends on which TC you use, which lens you use, and which body you use.

I have a Tamron 2X TC and a Kenko 1.5X TC.
I just tried both with my 85/1.8 and it worked.

But this was on a 1D Mk III. The Rebels and 30D/40D/50D are even more finicky with TC. I don't know about the 7D with a TC.

But as noted above, I prefer the performance and PQ of any non-TC'd lens over a TC combo.

[DC Fan]

I have it narrowed down in my mind between the 70-200 f/4L or the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

The 70-300mm IS USM has turned out some good results.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/201001140011.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/20091205c0030zxc.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/20100108a0168zxc.jpg

Images from indoor events with available light and run through Imagenomic Noiseware.

[aebrown]

On a budget, I would say get the 85 for starters, and then get the 70-200 f/4. You're going to need that 1.8 if you're doing indoors sports--you'll just have to get used to the fixed focal length. Then you can get the 70-200 f/4. I shot with it when I was a sports photographer for our school newspaper and it worked great!

As a compromise though, you could always just get the 135L and have both a low aperture, good focal length, and a great portrait lens (plus it's definitely one of the sharpest lenses I have ever handled--I love it!)

[Gatorboy]

Well, there are a lot of combinations that work and a lot of permutations that don't work.

Depends on which TC you use, which lens you use, and which body you use.

I have a Tamron 2X TC and a Kenko 1.5X TC.
I just tried both with my 85/1.8 and it worked.

But this was on a 1D Mk III. The Rebels and 30D/40D/50D are even more finicky with TC. I don't know about the 7D with a TC.

The Canon 85 f/1.8 won't even attach to the Canon 1.4x.

[clarence]

The Canon 85 f/1.8 won't even attach to the Canon 1.4x.

OK.

As stated above, some combinations work; some don't.
The Kenko 1.5x TC and Tamron 2x TC work with my 85/1.8 and 1D3.

[43 North]

So here is what I am thinking..... winter sports are almost over so we are going to be getting into a lot of outdoor sports and motorcross with spring and summer. My thought is to get the 70-200L F/4 lense without the IS. I have a pretty good monopod and will use it during these events.

I will keep looking and make a decision for next fall/winter on a good indoor lens. You guys think this is a good way of thinking? Be honest by all means....

[Scott V]

Sounds logical...I really don't think you can go wrong with the 85 1.8, which doubles as a great portrait lens also! If there is any lens your are on the fence about, try renting it from a reputable company like www.borrowlenses.com and put it thru its' paces at the events you are going to shoot at. good luck and good shooting

scott~

[jjackflash]

yes i do
you could always narrow you list down by renting and trying out lenses

[RonnieA]

Since you're on a budget, forget about the 85 1.8 for now and employ your 50 1.8 for hoops. It's not the quickest focusing lens, but it can produce a few keepers and works well as a portrait lens.

If "outdoor football" means shooting under "Friday Night Lights," then I think a 70-200 2.8 would better serve your needs. Obviously, it's more expensive than it's f/4 counterpart (a used one is probably double) and would require waiting and saving more pennies. Another option is the 200 2.8, which I believe is around the same price as the 70-200 f4 non-is. All that said, if you're still leaning towards the 70-200 f/4, you could learn how to use flash for nighttime football or simply crank the ISO on your 7d and go for it.

[43 North]

Since you're on a budget, forget about the 85 1.8 for now and employ your 50 1.8 for hoops. It's not the quickest focusing lens, but it can produce a few keepers and works well as a portrait lens.

If "outdoor football" means shooting under "Friday Night Lights," then I think a 70-200 2.8 would better serve your needs. Obviously, it's more expensive than it's f/4 counterpart (a used one is probably double) and would require waiting and saving more pennies. Another option is the 200 2.8, which I believe is around the same price as the 70-200 f4 non-is. All that said, if you're still leaning towards the 70-200 f/4, you could learn how to use flash for nighttime football or simply crank the ISO on your 7d and go for it.

You bring up an interesting point. I have a brand new 580EXII on it's way, should be here this week. High speed sync would be a good option. Do they usually let you use flash at nighttime football games? I know that it is probably out of the question for indoor basketball..... Anyone shed some light on this? (No pun intended)

[clarence]

I have a brand new 580EXII on it's way, should be here this week. High speed sync would be a good option. Do they usually let you use flash at nighttime football games?

Short answer: speedlite flash works great for night football... off-camera cord helps a lot (mainly to reduce red-eye). Don't use HSS. Just set SS at max xsync and let the strobe stop the action.

See http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=564196

[wyofizz]

What are you going to do with your photos?
Personal use or sales?

[Scott V]

You bring up an interesting point. I have a brand new 580EXII on it's way, should be here this week. High speed sync would be a good option. Do they usually let you use flash at nighttime football games? I know that it is probably out of the question for indoor basketball..... Anyone shed some light on this? (No pun intended) Just like indoors, make sure its kosher with the officials, coaches and whoever is in charge. I know alot of schools frown on any flash photography. I like you, have a real tight budget, and I sell my pictures, so to offset the cost I rent a few lenses here and there and plan to get as many events during the rental period. eventually the orders I get will pay for a new lens...just a suggestion from a learning photog like you. :)

[43 North]

What are you going to do with your photos?
Personal use or sales?

My goal is to sell the photos to the athletes and their families or friends.

[J.Napier]

43,
First off could you please put your name in your sig so I can quit calling you 43...unless you like it ofcourse.
Forget about high speed sync. for reasons stated above = many more. If it takes you a bit to save the extra money try to get the 70-200 2.8 or not even if you can get a used one. Its a workhorse and I would never think of getting rid of it and it takes well to a 1.4 TC depending on the situation but with field sports comming like soccer you will want the extra reach. Even with baseball comming unless you have field access you will sometimes want more reach. My 70-200 is my "MOST" used lens. Even over my 200 1.8 with extender on it, unless its football season and your using a strobe. You can learn strobes and football later this year when everyone starts gearing back up for that.
If you really want to get in some BB right now the 85 1.8 would be your next go to lens IMHO. But the 70-200 can be used for this also exspecillay if you get some strobes by next season.
Just my .2 worth...did I mention the 70-200 2.8?

[43 North]

I have always been a fan of buying Canon lenses.......but are the Tamrons any good? I can get one of those in a 70-200mm 2.8 for a reasonable price......

[J.Napier]

I have always been a fan of buying Canon lenses.......but are the Tamrons any good? I can get one of those in a 70-200mm 2.8 for a reasonable price......


I can not speak for the Tamron's I have only used the Canon I do not know the IQ with the 1.4 on a Tamron. You do what you can afford (or want to spend) to do and you go with that.
Sports action photography is not a cheep hobby I can assure you that.
Keep in mind you have to produce results (images) better than what the M's and D's with dslr can produce to make sales. And you will need premium access and the ability to get out of the way of arrent balls comming at you extreemly fast and they look really close when your looking through the view finder.
And you cant sell what you dont have. You must be ready for every shot its easy to get sucked into watching the game and miss the shot.