70-200mm for sports and outdoor, or a 300mm?

[genewch]

A friend of mine has an old 70-200mm f/2.8 made in 1990s for sale. It's really a solid little submarine. The lens' condition was mint because it's seldom used. He could offer me about 30% off. I'm deciding whether to buy it. I intend to use this range for shooting in the country parks, (outdoor) sports, such stuff etc. Well, I own a 135mm f/2 which can be converted into a 190mm with a 1.4x converter. My original intention is to get a 300mm f/4 for the above use. The price is about the same of a new 70-200 f/2.8. Now my friend's offer is attractive. What aspects should I consider to make a decision?

[ACDCROCKS]

70-200mm f/2.8 will suite you well for just about anysport with it's aperature. The 300mm f/4 will keep you away from them night pics unless you have a flash. I don't reccomend a flash for night sport's photography becausing the F-ing thing won't charge fast enough lol. But Anyway get the 70-200mm f/2.8 and witht eh 30% you save get a 1.4 converter to make a 280mm for them Wild wife shots,

[genewch]

I dont' have a 1.4x converter yet, but it's good to have one.

Since 135mm + 1.4x = 190 f/2.8, is it good enough to have a prime for sports? But my friend's offer is attractive indeed, up to 30% discount. But the 70-200mm is really heavy. I have to get a monopod to hold it steady.

[Mark_Cohran]

I have that lens and it's a great piece of equipment. I don't think you'll regret the purchase.

Mark

[20DNewbie]

Love my 70-200 2.8, it rarely comes off the body. That is until I get the 100-400 from Kev for a couple of weeks.

[Dante King]

Originally Posted by 20DNewbie

Love my 70-200 2.8, it rarely comes off the body. That is until I get the 100-400 from Kev for a couple of weeks.

you will learn to love both. Apples to oranges in what these puppies can do.

[ACDCROCKS]

Originally Posted by matthewlrigdon

Well, the TC's going to cost you a little bit of image quality (not much, mind you), but I have to imagine that the 70-200 at 200mm will give you a better image than the 135 with TC.

The 300 f4 does have IS, but if you've got good technique, you don't need that. Plus, shooting sports means you're dealing with fast shutter speeds which negates the need for IS.

While the 300f4 will give you a better image than the 70-200 with a TC, I think the flexibility of a 70-200 2.8 and the teleconverter for the same price outweighs the slight image degradation.

Basically, I can't see any reason to pass up that 70-200 f2.8 at that price. Chances are you'll never get a deal that good again. If you only want primes, then I can't say anything to that. However, the 70-200 is a REALLY good lense and doesn't give up much to the prime lenses that cover that range.

I dissagree that IS does not help with sports.

[ACDCROCKS]

Originally Posted by genewch

I dont' have a 1.4x converter yet, but it's good to have one.

Since 135mm + 1.4x = 190 f/2.8, is it good enough to have a prime for sports? But my friend's offer is attractive indeed, up to 30% discount. But the 70-200mm is really heavy. I have to get a monopod to hold it steady.

It's not heavy, you'll get useto it after a week. I shot 4 hours of football today and did'nt get bothered by the weight. I didn't use a monopod.

[jcpoulin]

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with my 1.6 crop rebel and this brings it to 300!! I just did a daughters soccer game and I could not have done it with a 300 alone. As play moves closer, I needed the 70 to 100 range ( near sidelines ) and play moved away, the 200 was fine. A little crop and I could fully isolate her if needed. Don't box yourself in to a focal length unless you know you will be farther away. A converter ( 1.4) could even change these numbers. A 300mm lens is not as functional as the 70-200 for non-sports photos. My Sigma cost $ 810 from sigma4less and may be cheaper than the used canon and optics runs very close if not better ( depends who you ask!!!
PS....IS for most sports.....not needed due to shutter speeds.

[genewch]

Yeah, you guys are tempting me to accept a kind offer. I agree that it's a very good offer that I may not find another. The 70-200 f/2.8 is such a reputed zoom. I love the feel of holding it and shooting with it though it's a big baby. Thank you guys. I'm considering the funding to complete this deal.

[genewch]

The lack of IS is a push to me to handle tele lens well. I'll train myself to have steady robot arms. :P

[Mike Reynolds]

awe just gettem both

[Tareq]

People, please post images samples from both lenses about sports to see if one of them or both are great for sports, thats better than discussing this point in many pages.

[Dan-o]

7-2 2.8

[molesrkool]

you save get a 1.4 converter to make a 280mm for them Wild wife shots,[/quote]

ooh.. wild wife shots

my immature side coming out