Thinking about buying a telephoto lens.

Hey folks. I am considering purchasing a new lens to extend my focal range as I currently have nothing longer than 55mm. The lenses I am considering (based on budget and need) are:

• 85 f/1.8
  
• 135 f/2
  
• 70-200 f/4 IS

Most of my shooting is done outside is reasonably good light and my inside shooting is done with my nifty or 17-55. Occasionly I shoot some sports in secondary school gym with relatively poor lighting (have to use ISO 1600/3200 f/2.8, so I can barely get by).

I like the idea of the 85 for the gym, but it doesn't give me much more range on the telephoto end - I need a little more for when I am outside. I have read that the 135 is a little long on an APS-C camera for shooting sports indoors, but I think that focal length would be good for my other shooting. The 70-200 would give me great range outdoors, but the f/4 wouldn't cut it in a gym.

I know that there is no 100% decision, but I would like some advice or insight on this purchase. I am sure some of you had to make a similar decision.

Thanks!

If you really like the 85, but want a little more reach, look at its twin the 100 f2.

For me though, I'd start with the 70-200 as the zoom would give you lots of options and its just a fantastic lens.

I just went through the exact decision process. I chose the 70-200mm f4. Just got it and all I can say is WOW. A whole new world has opened up. This weekend I plan to have alot of fun!!! I looked at my current lens and realized I needed a outdoor lens that
was telephoto and took me to greater distance. So for me- I excepted it as a outdoor lens. I will learn what focal length I use most and the next lens will be a fast prime covering my indoor shooting as well ??85 1.8. This 70-200mm lens is extremely sharp!

I think what I might do is sacrafice slightly on the 70-200 and purchase the f/4 non IS. Then in the fall, when school sports start up again, purchase the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2 depending on which focal length would be most useful for me.

bigland wrote in post #7974025
Hey folks. I am considering purchasing a new lens to extend my focal range as I currently have nothing longer than 55mm. The lenses I am considering (based on budget and need) are:

• 85 f/1.8
  
• 135 f/2
  
• 70-200 f/4 IS

Most of my shooting is done outside is reasonably good light and my inside shooting is done with my nifty or 17-55. Occasionly I shoot some sports in secondary school gym with relatively poor lighting (have to use ISO 1600/3200 f/2.8, so I can barely get by).

I like the idea of the 85 for the gym, but it doesn't give me much more range on the telephoto end - I need a little more for when I am outside. I have read that the 135 is a little long on an APS-C camera for shooting sports indoors, but I think that focal length would be good for my other shooting. The 70-200 would give me great range outdoors, but the f/4 wouldn't cut it in a gym.

I know that there is no 100% decision, but I would like some advice or insight on this purchase. I am sure some of you had to make a similar decision.

Thanks!

135mm f/2 is NOT long for sports. In fact it might still feel short. 200mm is a bare minimum for good shooting from the stands at ballgames. 70-200 is the best lens for versatility, but unless you have an f/2.8 and access and control to some strobes, you will be forced to use really high ISO. The 135/2 is the better option versus the 85/1.8. 85/1.8 is great for small high school auditoriums tho. You need to be relatively close to use the 85/1.8.

I use my 70-200 f/4L USM IS a lot and find it serves me well in many if not most situations.
I've used it for MLB games, NFL games, Pro Tennis, and even a snowboarding event (check out my flickr to see shots from the RedBull Ice Scrapers 2009, I finally got around to processing them and cropping, they are currently uploading).

One thing worth mentioning about the 70-200 f/4L IS is that it has the fastest AF motor of the 3 options you are considering. This is important when you are trying to shoot AISERVO with fast sports (baseball swings & tennis swings need 1/1600 or more to freeze action, 1/2000+ is prefered).

Thanks! Most of my sports shooting is done in a High School Gymnasium. I am free to roam courtside, so the 85 f/1.8 would probably be the best to try at first. I won't really need that lens until the fall, so I may get the 70-200 f/4 for shooting this summer.

What are the differences between 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS. I know one has IS and weather sealing, but after that, I don't know of any differences.

bigland wrote in post #7975927
Thanks! Most of my sports shooting is done in a High School Gymnasium. I am free to roam courtside, so the 85 f/1.8 would probably be the best to try at first. I won't really need that lens until the fall, so I may get the 70-200 f/4 for shooting this summer.

What are the differences between 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS. I know one has IS and weather sealing, but after that, I don't know of any differences.

The 70-200 F/4 IS has a fluorite element, many more elements than the non-IS, obviously has IS, and is a teensy weensy bit better, almost unnoticeably better than its non-IS sibling.

Personally, I only replaced my F/4 non-IS with the IS version because I used it in fairly low light below 1/320s on crop a lot, but only after verifying it was indeed at least as good as my old non-IS version.

This lens, BTW, is a very dangerous one. It will turn you onto L-glass, and photography tends to become a very expensive hobby very quickly after that .

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #7975950
The 70-200 F/4 IS has a fluorite element, many more elements than the non-IS, obviously has IS, and is a teensy weensy bit better, almost unnoticeably better than its non-IS sibling.

Personally, I only replaced my F/4 non-IS with the IS version because I used it in fairly low light below 1/320s on crop a lot, but only after verifying it was indeed at least as good as my old non-IS version.

This lens, BTW, is a very dangerous one. It will turn you onto L-glass, and photography tends to become a very expensive hobby very quickly after that .

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks! When I bought my 40D last summer, I thought the kit lens (17-85) and nifty would be all I would need. My, how quickly that changed. I havn't purchased an L yet, but when I do I think the fever might catch. The good thing is, I really like my 17-55 and 10-22, so I won't need to replace them as long as I have a crop camera.

Could you give me an example of the light conditions where the 70-200 f/4 non-is didn't cut it?

bigland wrote in post #7976137
Thanks! When I bought my 40D last summer, I thought the kit lens (17-85) and nifty would be all I would need. My, how quickly that changed. I havn't purchased an L yet, but when I do I think the fever might catch. The good thing is, I really like my 17-55 and 10-22, so I won't need to replace them as long as I have a crop camera.

Could you give me an example of the light conditions where the 70-200 f/4 non-is didn't cut it?

It did cut it, but I couldn't handhold it anymore. Essentially at 800 iso to 1600 iso, F/4, and shutter speed slower than 1/320s. That is still about three stops faster than a reasonably lit sitting room with fairly light fittings. I've shot with the IS version handheld at 200 mm and 1/20s without a problem, there is no way I could do that with the non-IS version.

Kind regards, Wim

bigland wrote in post #7975927
Thanks! Most of my sports shooting is done in a High School Gymnasium. I am free to roam courtside, so the 85 f/1.8 would probably be the best to try at first. I won't really need that lens until the fall, so I may get the 70-200 f/4 for shooting this summer.

What are the differences between 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 IS. I know one has IS and weather sealing, but after that, I don't know of any differences.

Do not expect the 70-200 f4 to be of any use in an indoor gym. It's just too slow.

flickserve wrote in post #7977093
Do not expect the 70-200 f4 to be of any use in an indoor gym. It's just too slow.

Yeah. I hear ya. In the gym, I HAVE to use my 17-55 at f2.8 with the ISO at 3200 to get decent exposure. I decided to get the f/4 anyway for this summer. In the fall I may get an 85 f/1.8 for shooting sports in the gym.

Thanks for your input.

for the price of the 70-200 f4is you can get the 70-200 f2.8 NON is

the 2.8 non IS would probably suit you very well in this situation. it is a killer lens and is known to be sharper even than the 70-2002.8 IS...

buying the f4 non is KNOWING you are going to replace it in a few months is not the best decision in my opinion.

bigland wrote in post #7974512
I think what I might do is sacrafice slightly on the 70-200 and purchase the f/4 non IS. Then in the fall, when school sports start up again, purchase the 85 1.8 or the 135 f/2 depending on which focal length would be most useful for me.

you may want to rethink that strategy, although not indoors, here is how one person compared the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4 with a much cheaper 55-250IS a few days ago -

absolutic wrote in post #7981702
Rented 70-200 L 2.8 lens (non-IS) and tried it for the last couple of days with 2X Canon teleconverter and without. Supposed to be much better lens than the 250, right? After taking about a 1000 shots with 70-200 I am glad I have 55-250. There was absolutely nothing special about 70-200 results. I expected USM focusing faster than that of my other lenses, 17-85 and 28-135. I did not see the difference between focusing speed. I guess my expectations were too high. And the weight of that thing, at first it is no problem, but after carrying it for 2 hours it gets heavy. 55-250 is very very light. And only 20% of the price.

Since most of your shooting is done indoors, I would get the 70-200. You already stated that you only have to shoot in the secondary gym "occasionally" and that you can "barely get by". While that may not be idea, the versatility of the 70-200 will open a new world to you everywhere else you shoot.

Many years ago, I used to shoot high school sports for a local newspaper. This was back in the film days and I only carried 2 bodies and 3 lenses. They were 20-35 3.5L, 85 1.2L and 300 2.8L. With the conversion factor, you will have something similar in focal lengths to what I had.

Shoot your basketball from end court if possible. It's a lot easier to have the players coming toward you than trying to pan back and forth with the players.

Good Luck!

watt100 wrote in post #8022990
you may want to rethink that strategy, although not indoors, here is how one person compared the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4 with a much cheaper 55-250IS a few days ago -

I'm sorry, I really don't think I am going to rethink my strategy based on ONE person's opinion.

MikeMcl: I am not going to automatically replace the 70-200 in the fall. I will only consider replacing if I find I need the IS in my regular, daily shooting. I am going to consider augmenting my lens lineup with a 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2. I really don't think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be my answer because I need to set my ISO at 3200 with an aperture of 2.8 to have any chance of freezing the action. I want to get away from shooting at ISO 3200.


Sumodog: Thanks for the advice on shooting the BBall. Which focal length did you find most useful when shooting courtside?