very interesting comment photo rebel. Last year I briefly
shots sports using the 70-200 f/2.8 and when I switched to
the 300 f/4L IS I oddly found that I had a higher percentage
but it's good discussion that everyone is bringing up. Seeing
what some have done with the 70-200, I'm wondering if it was
technique or my copy...
Frankly, I think it had more to do with technique in my case. I would be too busy zooming, and miss a shot. Or zoom..and not refocus in time. I also got several soft shots, with the 70-200. I would have thought it was the lens, but I also got some very sharp shots too. Same lens, same camera. I really believe it was my lack of technique with the 70-200. (non IS)
I didn't mean to imply the 200 is a far better lens. The 200 is a better lens _for me_, but not necessarily everyone else. I just tried to find the tool I could work with and get results, which is what I did.
I also got much better shots with the 300 f/4L in daytime softball, but not Friday night football.