Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM

scobols wrote in post #18442359
I just used it this morning for football with the 1.4x. I probably won't be able to post examples for a few days but I will as soon as I can. I used it on a 7D MkII and it seemed to focus pretty good. My photos were sharper and the focus was faster without, that's a given, but it was still usable with the 1.4x. I used it for a while and then finally decided to just shoot without it and crop the photos later. If you need the reach, a 300mm lens will always be better than the teleconverter.

I would agree. It does take a small hit on IQ but AF speed I never noticed any loss even during night games. I do prefer to shoot without the TC but if your looking for 300 the MK2 cannot be beat. That MK2 is top notch and handles any TC great.

But I have dual purpose for my 200/2... portraits/indoor at 200 then outdoor w/ the 1.4x. My alternative would be a 70-200 and a 300 or 400.

It has been said... whatever length you think you need... get the next longest.

jlstan wrote in post #18442355
Does anyone have experience with this lens using it with the1.4xIII for sports that they could share a review on. AF speed etc.?

I shot Petit LeMans two years in a row with mostly the 200, with and without the 1.4. Never really noticed any issues.

Thanks for all the great posts. I have been racking my brain between the 200, 300 and 120-300. I shoot sports for a university and also do senior and family shots and of course like everyone else looking for the fast do all lens. I currently shoot the following glass 70-200 mark II, 50 mm F1.2,100-400 version I, 200mm 2.8 and a 150-600 Sigma Sport. Also have a 1.4xIII to mix things up. My gut is telling me the 300mm 2.8 Mark II but the120- 300 has my attention too yet 400mm is nice on the soccer field. My main sports are soccer, volleyball,hockey,foot​ball,baseball and softball......lol pretty much everything.

I just shot a soccer night game under the lights last night and once the sky turned off my ISO was cranking to hold my speed up. My 70-200 is all I had at that point.

What would you buy is the question of the day?

70-200 is your family shots/senior lens and shorter needs sports lens. You my friend need the 400 2.8. You already have the 1.4xIII and that lens will become an amazing 560mm F4 lens which would benefit you in the sports/big field area under lights. You would gain 1 1/3 stop of ISO drop with that combo.

The 120-300 is great. It's AF speed is noticeably slower but is still rock solid. It will only be slow for you in those oh crap moments when your picking the camera up to capture an action shot and the focus is at one end of the other... you'll miss the shot. Canon on the other hand nails it. If the focus is close to where it needs to be before you start you'll get it. The center sharpness is excellent on the 120-300 but falls off in the midrange/edge/corner..​. it's NOT noticeable until you compare next to the 200/300/400 whites of canon and then you'll see how well the canons hold sharpness throughout.

I've payed attention to alot of sport photographers including college and high school and one thing you always see... 70-200 and 300 2.8 or 400 2.8. Since you mention baseball/softball/fooo​tball/soccer = 400 2.8 Volleyball = 200-300 and hockey is more of a 200-300 also and both of these the 200/2 would be great for since these are indoor lower light venues.

See I'm taking different approach. 200/2 + 1.4 to handle all my 200/300 needs and wanting to pickup a 400 2.8 to handle all my 400/560 needs.

The only negative I see is the 400 2.8 IS V1 is no longer being serviced by CPS which you doing what you are doing that may leave you wanting the II = 8k on the used market.

Excellent feedback!! You are using the 200mm in exactly the way that I was thinking I could do
. it's just tough seeing I have 200mm already covered. $8000 is a touch out of my range but the 300mm mark II is.

Yup. Only you can weigh in the results we can only offer direct feedback of our own experience.

I'd say the 200 would be a great choice for you IF you didn't have all that field sports especially field sports under natural light. I highly highly recommend the 300 2.8 mk2 OR the 400mm 2.8 IS V1 for your needs. IF you don't want a lens that isn't serviced by CPS then the 300mk2 is an excellent choice and as far as IQ goes it's better (on a 16mp sensor) at 420mm F4 than the 400mm 2.8 IS V1 is at 2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

If your shooting for the college then chances are for volleyball/hockey you have all the premium sideline spots available and for those two I'd rather use the 70-200 over a 200/2 just to be able to zoom out. Then you could have the 300 2.8 IS II with you for if you want to reach further.

300 3.8mk2 would be my pick (with your 70-200). Until you can swing the 400

Thanks for the input everyone it was the final nudge I needed. The 300mm 2.8 mark II is my final answer....

lovely image

From a recent senior session.

at the Lake !

zeus77 wrote in post #18449321

Hosted photo: posted by zeus77 in
./showthread.php?p=184​49321&i=i196520967
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

good job!

fantastic, i bet she is pleased at result.

I know this is the 200mm thread however Thanks again for helping me decide between the 200 and 300. I couldn't be more happy with my decision to get the 300.

This test shot was handheld using the 300 markII and the 1.4xIII teleconverter.

Yup no problem. With the things you pointed out the 300 made more sense. Excellent image.