Moving from 70-300 to a 70-200 lens

I currently shoot with a 75-300 and have recently started shooting some football/soccer games and looking to move to the next level 70-200 F2.8 type lens to blur backgrounds more and shoot more in lower light situations. My question to those of you who shot with a 70-200 is, do you miss shooting in that 200-300 range?

I am on a budget and this is only something I do on the side. The few games I have shot recently, I have needed every bit of that 300 when they are on the other side of the field, but when the action is close, with this entry level lens, everything is in focus. I know I could invest in a 300 or 400 lens, but its just not in the budget. Am I over thinking this length issue if I make the switch?

The nice thing about the 70-200 f2.8 zooms is that they will take a 1.4 tcon nicely.

You will get used to once you start using the lens.

You can also consider the Sigma 100-300 F4 which is less costly and great for action shots. ( with one F stop loss vs the 70-200 2.8 )

Just moved from tamron 70-300 to 70-200 f/4 is. I don't miss long range at all because I never really used it on that end much. Also a crop should yield similar iq.

Hi - I went from the 75 - 300mm non IS model to the 70-200mm 2.8 Is Mk 2 lens (massive jump for me). Living in the North of the Uk I found the 75 -300 would not cope with the low light of the football matches I was attending

I do miss that extra 100mm (im on a cropped sensor), The 1.4 teleconvertor is on the wish list for exactly this reason. I will only use it though for the matches that offer bright shooting conditions though.

Even at its widest I find that I have to push the ISO up quite high to get up to 5 FPS on my 7D.

What the 70-200mm 2.8 does allow me to do is shoot images under the (rather poor ) floodlights, although I do have to push the ISO into the High range.

To return to the missing 100mm - you get used to it and position yourself for different shots. The 70 - 200mm is an amazing lens at 70 mm it really makes you smile. But it really comes into its own at low light.

Martin

Huck wrote in post #13194377
I currently shoot with a 75-300 and have recently started shooting some football/soccer games and looking to move to the next level 70-200 F2.8 type lens to blur backgrounds more and shoot more in lower light situations. My question to those of you who shot with a 70-200 is, do you miss shooting in that 200-300 range?

I am on a budget and this is only something I do on the side. The few games I have shot recently, I have needed every bit of that 300 when they are on the other side of the field, but when the action is close, with this entry level lens, everything is in focus. I know I could invest in a 300 or 400 lens, but its just not in the budget. Am I over thinking this length issue if I make the switch?

yeah, very much so miss 200-300 for football and soccer
but 2.8 over 200mm is $$$$

so either deal with just shooting near stuff and use 70-200 2.8 or maybe go 300 f/4 non-IS used for $650ish and only shoot day games

Thanks for the advice guys. I agree the 2.8 is better then 300mm anyday, but if I am going to shot sports in the daytime for those longer shots, the 300mm F4 might be a good way to go once I get my 70-200. It would get used for other things I enjoy shooting and had not thought about it.

70-200 with 1.4 or 2.0 is the way to go.. 75-300 and 70-200 are two different worlds

70-200 would be best if it's your only Football lens. I think there's too many shots you wouldn't get if a 300 f/4 was your only lens. Plus in low light you'll still be stuck at shooting 300mm f/4 and it's going to get difficult to keep the shutter where you need it IMO.

The 70-200 cropped can give you the same view as your 300 did and the image quality will still be very good. Then you can always add a 1.4tcon for even more reach.