Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Oct 2009 (Tuesday) 13:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Need Help... 200mm f/2.8 II or 70-200mm f/4 non-IS

 
jaysen
Member
169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles & Riverside County
     
Oct 27, 2009 13:46 |  #1

I usually see the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS vs 70-200mm f/4 IS threads (one actually going on just below mine) however I haven't seen this thread before.

I'm new to the hobby and I've been finding myself shooting a lot of more of my little nephews football games. Being that I'm new to the hobby and expecting a baby in a few months, I don't have a whole lot of cash to spend on a new lens.

Currently I'm using my 28-135 when shooting games however I'm slowly finding that the 135 end is too short for me. I'm using it on a Crop Body (XSi) and due to my placement most of the time (sidelines or bleachers) it's extremely difficult for me to "GET IN" the game...

So here's my question; What do you guys think about the two lenses for what I've described. As of now, I don't see myself doing any indoor shooting with the 200 nor do I see myself doing any major low light shooting with that focal length. However, planning for the future is always better :) Also how important do you think IS is given my circumstances. Both are roughly the same (with the f/2.8 being a little more expensive)

I'm a little biased towards Prime lenses however I noticed when shooting with my 28-135, I'm always fixed at the 135 end.


Canon 7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 50mm f/1.4 - 055XPROB sticks - 322RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
beepclick
Goldmember
Avatar
1,850 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Oct 27, 2009 13:54 |  #2

I would get the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. Shooting at 200mm without IS can be a challenge unless you have nice, high shutter speeds.

This also gives you 100mm more reach. I've had 2 copies of the 70-300. First one I loved but sold cuz' I had to see what all the fuss was on the 70-200 F/4L IS. The 70-200 F/4L IS is truly amazing. HOwever, I missed the extra reach of the 70-300, so got another copy. Then money got tight and I had to choose, and I just couldn't part with the F4L IS.

If you are set on the 2 lenses mentioned in your thread title, get the Canon.


Gear https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=635450

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
footballdude2k3
Senior Member
Avatar
602 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: North Liberty, Iowa
     
Oct 27, 2009 14:26 |  #3

i think that you are always at the 135 end because it is sooo short for a football game, i like the 70-300 if you are just starting since you would have IS and extra reach




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kini
Senior Member
386 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 27, 2009 16:33 |  #4

Depends. IQ and being able to get decent background separation, fast AF or IS (not needed for sports) 300mm without a TC and the convenience of a zoom.

I would go for the IQ and AF and get the 200/2.8 and a 1.4TC like the Kenko or Tamron Pro versions.

Then you have 200/2.8 and 280/4.

Gene




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaysen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles & Riverside County
     
Oct 27, 2009 18:56 |  #5

Gene & Football Dude,

Thanks for the replies... I am leaning more towards the 200mm f/2.8 - Personally all the football action shots I've seen and have really taken a liking to are the ones that have well defined background separation. Gene, Also never thought about an extender... although that makes perfect sense.

This is a shot taken on a gloomy day with my 28-135... A little under exposed, and had to brighten a little in PS

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Canon 7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 50mm f/1.4 - 055XPROB sticks - 322RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phreeky
Goldmember
3,499 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Australia
     
Oct 27, 2009 19:31 |  #6

What focal length was that at, and is that the full frame?

A prime could become a bit frustrating at times if it turns out to be too long for some shots, so be careful about that. It's not unusual to see pros quickly grabbing the 2nd body with zoom attached to snap some shots of closer action, and for good reason - sometimes it's needed. You could change back to the 28-135 when needed, but changing lenses is not something you want to be doing constantly.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaysen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles & Riverside County
     
Oct 27, 2009 20:36 |  #7

135mm, f/6.3, 1/1000 sec, ISO-400 - Shot on an XSi body . It is a crop of the original... Seen here;

resized

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Canon 7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 50mm f/1.4 - 055XPROB sticks - 322RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Oct 27, 2009 20:40 |  #8

I agree, unless you have two camera bodies, stick with a zoom for sports.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kini
Senior Member
386 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 27, 2009 21:13 |  #9

amfoto1 wrote in post #8907471 (external link)
I agree, unless you have two camera bodies, stick with a zoom for sports.

Not necessarily. Check out FM sports forum or here and see there are many who shoot with just one prime, usually 300mm or longer. Sure you have to compromise on some shots but it also gives some added perspective of the up close in your face shots.

It also matter where you place yourself on the field.

The OP is on a limited budget and the 200/2.8 is the better option by far than the 70-300IS. The 70-200/4 is a decent choice as well if you feel that 2.8 is not needed.

Gene




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zoom_zoom
Senior Member
896 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Dec 2008
Location: AB, Canada
     
Oct 28, 2009 07:56 |  #10

If you believe that a 200mm fixed prime will be usable in photographing your nephew's football games, then I would recommend it first.

However, if you are shooting in good light and would like the convenience of the zoom, then the 70-200 would be the way to go. It's a tough decision... with the 70-200, you could crop if you want to get "closer" and the image will still be nice and sharp (I've done this with a lot of non-sporting images and it works very well). With the 200, you can't "uncrop" an image.

Also, congrats on your upcoming baby and your new lens :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ H. ­ Photography
Senior Member
488 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Leuven, Belgium
     
Oct 28, 2009 08:11 |  #11

I have both 70-300 and 200 L and I never use the 70-300 anymore. The 200 comes close to 300mm with a 1.4 TC and it's a lot sharper, even without the IS. When shooting sports on a bright day you don't need the IS anyway because you'll have nice high shutter speeds. For shooting in darker conditions you'll need some kind of tripod/monopod setup anyway, even with the 70-300.


500D | 11-16 2.8 | 17-55 2.8 IS | 35 1.4 L | 135 2.0 L | 200 2.8 L II
My website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaysen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles & Riverside County
     
Oct 28, 2009 22:46 |  #12

Zoom, thanks for the input - and thank you for the support god only knows I'll need it when the baby comes ;)

Tom, thank you as well for the input... It seems as one day passes, I'm set on the 200mm, as the next comes I've changed my mind and decided on the 70-200.. UGH !!! I can see now why this is SUCH an expensive hobby... There is no such thing as ONE LENS !!!!! :)


Canon 7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 50mm f/1.4 - 055XPROB sticks - 322RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BlueTsunami
Goldmember
Avatar
1,021 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Oct 28, 2009 22:58 |  #13

Definitely the 200/2.8. I've never shot a football game but from what I've seen and read, you should just be mindful of where you're standing (so you can canvas the whole field) when using a prime. With the larger aperture, you should be able to get nice isolation too.'

Also, looking at the 135mm shot, at 200mm you'll definitely be really close to the action.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Oct 28, 2009 23:03 |  #14

+1 for the 200 f/2.8. If you're finding 135mm to be too short, you're probably going zoomed all the way to 200mm on the 70-200 anyway. You'll get f/2.8 and AMAZING image quality to boot! Good luck!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chronoknight
Member
Avatar
156 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Oct 28, 2009 23:18 as a reply to  @ shooter mcgavin's post |  #15

I shoot football with a 30D and 70-200 f/4. I would highly recommend this lens as long as you don't need the wider f/2.8 aperture to get a shutter speed above 1/500 (to freeze action). For the field where I shoot, f/4 is enough, and in the sample picture you posted it would be enough, but it probably wouldn't if you were at a night time game (though 2.8 might not be enough either). As a side note, you should shoot with the aperture wide open for lower shutter speeds and better subject isolation. Also, for the people suggesting a 70-300 IS, IS will do nothing to freeze a moving subject.

I find that the f/4 gives decent subject isolation, and the zoom is extremely convenient. Yes, sometimes even 200 isn't enough and I end up cropping heavily, but if you're using a 200 prime, what will you do when the subject runs right at you and you don't have a second body with a shorter lens? I can just zoom out to 70mm.

Here's a sample football pic from the 70-200 f/4 that I took:

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/4044880358_1d0707a230.jpg

Canon 6D - Canon 7D - 15-85mm IS - Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 - 40mm ƒ/2.8 STM - 50mm ƒ/1.8 II - 24-105mm ƒ/4L IS
- 70-200mm ƒ/4L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,239 views & 0 likes for this thread
Need Help... 200mm f/2.8 II or 70-200mm f/4 non-IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is JohnBlackburn
3139 guests, 217 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.