70-200 IS 2.8L & 1.4 TC or the 100-400 L

[seaspray]

I've been shooting youth sports alot lately and am in the need of a longer lense. I shoot both in doors , basketball, volleyball and out doors, football, baseball soccer etc, and now a pilot friend wants me to do some aerial shots for him. The cost difference isn't a issue. Oh and they'll be attached to my 20d
Thanks.

[LightRules]

the 70-200 plus 1.4xTC only gives you 280mm. Do you mean the 2xTC? This would make the 70-200 a 400mm f5.6, which is equal to the 100-400 (400 f5.6 also). If that's the case, see this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

The 100-400L is going to give you better results.

[PacAce]

I've been shooting youth sports alot lately and am in the need of a longer lense. I shoot both in doors , basketball, volleyball and out doors, football, baseball soccer etc, and now a pilot friend wants me to do some aerial shots for him. The cost difference isn't a issue. Oh and they'll be attached to my 20d
Thanks.
Did you say you shoot indoors, too? Then I think it's a no-brainer. Go with the 70-200 f/2.8.

[seaspray]

Thanks, I'm leaning heavily toward the 70-200 and a 1.4 TC

[LightRules]

I use the 70-200IS with 1.4 and 2x TCs. I rarely use the 2xTC though on it; the 1.4 renders excellent images though. If you were going to use the 2xTC a lot, I'd say either the 100-400L or the 80-400EX (or better yet the 300 f4 IS + 1.4xTC). But the 70-200IS is outstanding alone or with 1.4xTC.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

70-200 f/2.8L IS with the t-con is the way to go. If your shooting indoors you'll be kicking yourself the whole time if you get the 100-400L. The reach is nice, but the apeture will work against you for the basketball and volleyball. I tried shooting two soccer events indoors with my 70-200 f/4L and it was a horrible experience.

[seaspray]

The 1.6 factor with the 20d would render 640 at the upper end of the 100-400 and I don't think I need that much right now and at 200 on the 20d with a 1.4 should render me 440mm. I hope my math is right. Plus the added benefit of shooting indoors without a flash with the 2.8

[emurph2]

I've used the 100-400 and am not impressed with it and wouldn't buy it. I love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM lens and use it often. I also use it with the 1.4 extender. I love them both and I shoot mostly sports too.

[seaspray]

Looks like I'm heading for my first L glass at 70-200 f2.8! Thanks everyone for your input

[Rob612]

Looks like I'm heading for my first L glass at 70-200 f2.8! Thanks everyone for your input

Gi ahead, you won't regret the effort !

[ayotnoms]

The 1.6 factor with the 20d would render 640 at the upper end of the 100-400 and I don't think I need that much right now and at 200 on the 20d with a 1.4 should render me 440mm. I hope my math is right. Plus the added benefit of shooting indoors without a flash with the 2.8
Math is OK but one thing missing is that the 1.4 converter reduces the aperture to f/4....so you're right back to problematic low-light photography.

...your last sentence makes it unclear whether you were expecting f/2.8 with the 1.4 mounted.

Also, when I have the 1.4 mounted on the 100-400, the AF doesn't operate. Forgot to mention that.

FWIW

[condyk]

Why IS for sports? How will IS help you? How about a nice fast prime instead with a TCon if you need even longer.

[xuxu1]

Why IS for sports? How will IS help you? How about a nice fast prime instead with a TCon if you need even longer.

Well, why not IS for sports. In some situations like for example car racing the IS set to mode 2 and panning (with the 100-400L) does a wonderful job.

OK... I know... it´s not an f2.8 lens. Exactly for this reason you need more than one lens. It would be too easy (and impossible) having one lens for all kinds of shooting.

I´m still saving for the 70-200L IS f2.8 even though i´m shooting outdoors 99,95%. There are situations when my wonderful 100-400L or one of my other lenses is/are of no use (0,05%). So the only solution is... yes... as soon as you can afford it, buy what you need. And i know now that when i´ve got the 70-200L IS, then this one was´nt the last lens cause i love macro shooting. Guess what... don´t have a decent macro lens yet. Aaahhh and those heavy lenses. Sometimes i wish i could have one of those highly rated and light weighted 70-200L f4. So... one more lens missing here :evil: :lol:

ED

[hauff]

I use a 20D with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and a Tamron 1.4X TC for shooting sports pictures. I couldn't be happier with the combo. It's great for the longer shots outside and inside you will almost never need the 1.4X, so you have the advantage of f/2.8. I myself, cannot see any loss of quality in a picture taken with the 1.4X on. Of course this is only my 2 cents worth.

[ScottE]

I have the 70-200/2.8, but chose a Sigma 50-500 over the Canon 100-400 because image quality was similar and I wanted the longer focal length.

With a 1.4x teleconverter, the 70-200 image quality is similar to the 50-500 (or the 100-400). With a 2x teleconverter on the 70-200, the 50-500 has noticeably better resolution.

When shooting outdoor sports I generally choose the 50-500 if the light is good because of the better zoom range. In duller light conditions I switch to the 70-200 because the larger aperture permits faster shutter speeds. For the sports I shoot, track and field, ski racing and bike racing, the 50-500 gets the most use.

Scott

[seaspray]

I was looking at the 2.8 for indoor use and wouldn't need the 1.4TC and adding the TC for the longer shots on football and baseball fields where the f/4 outdoors would work fine. I've not looked at the Sigma 50-500 as of yet.

[sccdominant]

you going to buy the is? im in the same dillema as you seaspray. I dont think im going to need the IS at all. Any one have the 2.8 non IS?

[kenyc]

I got the 70-200L IS 2.8 with a Sigma 2X extender I only plan on using the extender outdoors and the times I've use it, it works great. I LOVE the 70-200L IS 2.8!!

KAC

[sccdominant]

DOES ANYONE HAVE THE NON IS 2.8

[Rob612]

DOES ANYONE HAVE THE NON IS 2.8

I had it. Then for several psycological reasons I felt the need do make myself a gift and got the IS version.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80732

Here is something that witout IS I would never do.

[condyk]

Here is something that witout IS I would never do.

I just don't believe that a static subject, hand held at up to 200mm, could not be got without IS :lol: You must have very shaky hands. The amount of vertical movement in the top image in bonkers.

[Rob612]

I just don't believe that a static subject, hand held at up to 200mm, could not be got without IS :lol: You must have very shaky hands. The amount of vertical movement in the top image in bonkers.

Read the whole post, the shots were intentionally taked @1/25, in very difficult position, just to give it a try. I would never shoot anything at that shutter speed and in those conditions, in real life :)

[seaspray]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm now waiting for my 70-200 f\2.8 IS and the 1.4 TC to arrive. Hopefully in time for my sons baseball tournament.

[Keiffer]

Ok. So Seaspray, where did you order it from?:-) And did you get a good deal on it?

[kenyc]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm now waiting for my 70-200 f\2.8 IS and the 1.4 TC to arrive. Hopefully in time for my sons baseball tournament.

Looking forward to seeing your pics!!!

KAC