Want to rip my insides out

I have been thinking for about 3 months now that i want a new lens a telephoto. I shoot ice hockey right now with my 24-105 f/4l is and it does a ok job with some editing. i also like to shoot my dogs (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE) and some wild life (mostly zoo shots). i realize that the 70-200 f/2.8 is or non is would be a lot better for ice hockey but i see that the 70-200 f/4 is is just so sharp and newer. I have around 1200 to spend give or take some. I don't know if i should get a used 70-200 f/4 for wildlife and pets then get a used fast prime for ice hockey or what. Or if there are other lens that you think would be a good option like the sig 70-200 Do you think that is a good one? Weight is not that big of a factor for me. I am stressed way to much out over this. HELP

Link to hockey shots i took with the 24-105

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1009892

70-200 2.8 nonIS all the way. It never leaves my 40D for hockey, I have tried an 85L for hockey as well and it just wasn't flexible enough. These guys are OHL, so in terms of speed they are very close to NHL level. Here are some photos I took with my 70-200 2.8L nonIS:

http://windsorite.ca …pitfires-edge-london-4-3/

http://windsorite.ca …-5-victory-over-plymouth/

I wouldn't give the fact the 70-200 f4 is sharper or newer much consideration. If money is an issue, look to the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS, it is around $1300 new I believe.

That's a tough one.. I don't shoot either of those things, so I can't say for sure. I would probably go with the 70-200 f2.8. I think that IS will help when you need to shoot at slower shutter speeds, but it won't help to freeze fast moving subjects like hockey players and dogs.

I would get the fastest lens that I could afford and push the ISO up a little bit as necessary. 7D should have no problem at higher ISO.

k4show wrote in post #11975860
70-200 2.8 nonIS all the way. It never leaves my 40D for hockey, I have tried an 85L for hockey as well and it just wasn't flexible enough. These guys are OHL, so in terms of speed they are very close to NHL level. Here are some photos I took with my 70-200 2.8L nonIS:

http://windsorite.ca …pitfires-edge-london-4-3/

http://windsorite.ca …-5-victory-over-plymouth/

Wow those look really good i love the birds eye angle

laselects06 wrote in post #11975890
Wow those look really good i love the birds eye angle

Thank you I appreciate it, I am very fortunate that our arena has catwalk access. But we don't have holes in the glass or strobes unfortunately.

k4show wrote in post #11975904
Thank you I appreciate it, I am very fortunate that our arena has catwalk access. But we don't have holes in the glass or strobes unfortunately.

So all the other shots were through the plexi glass?

One thing to point out. The 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS are two different beasts and not to be confused. The IS version is newer and crazy sharp. The non-IS is not as sharp.

gjl711 wrote in post #11975947
One thing to point out. The 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS are two different beasts and not to be confused. The IS version is newer and crazy sharp. The non-IS is not as sharp.

^^ The non-IS f/4 is very sharp, but not as sharp as the IS.

Sigma 70-200´s atleast the ones pre OS (i havenct checked up on that lens) aren´t very sharp at f/2.8 which i´m guessing you´ll use alot for hockey.
You might want to look at the Canon f/2.8 200L II it´s roughly the price of a sigma.

laselects06 wrote in post #11975929
So all the other shots were through the plexi glass?

Every one except the aerial shots and the photos on the ice (ceremony and such) If you click my name on that article you can see all the others as well, however some were taken with a 300 2.8 my friend let me shoot with

I dont see why you need IS. Shooting hockey I am assuming you want a faster shutter speed than 1/200th, probably closer to 1/500th as a minimum. IS wont really help at these speeds. Now if you were shooting static objects in dark environments then it would come in handy.

laselects06 wrote in post #11975830
I have been thinking for about 3 months now that i want a new lens a telephoto. I shoot ice hockey right now with my 24-105 f/4l is and it does a ok job with some editing. i also like to shoot my dogs (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE) and some wild life (mostly zoo shots). i realize that the 70-200 f/2.8 is or non is would be a lot better for ice hockey but i see that the 70-200 f/4 is is just so sharp and newer. I have around 1200 to spend give or take some. I don't know if i should get a used 70-200 f/4 for wildlife and pets then get a used fast prime for ice hockey or what. Or if there are other lens that you think would be a good option like the sig 70-200 Do you think that is a good one? Weight is not that big of a factor for me. I am stressed way to much out over this. HELP

Link to hockey shots i took with the 24-105

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1009892

Another possibility to consider is a gently-used 70-200 f2.8L IS (Mark I). I recently upgraded to the Mark II and will be selling my Mark I for around $1200 or so. That seems to be in the same ballpark as what you're considering spending. I'm waiting to see if a friend of mine wants the lens and, if not, I'll be offering it for sale here and elsewhere. But I bet you can find them in the $1200-1400 range in like new condition.

sdipirro wrote in post #11976088
Another possibility to consider is a gently-used 70-200 f2.8L IS (Mark I). I recently upgraded to the Mark II and will be selling my Mark I for around $1200 or so. That seems to be in the same ballpark as what you're considering spending. I'm waiting to see if a friend of mine wants the lens and, if not, I'll be offering it for sale here and elsewhere. But I bet you can find them in the $1200-1400 range in like new condition.

If you are going to sell it let me know

Fixed focal length are too limiting for ice hockey. Last week I was at a hockey game and realized I had my 70-200f4 in the bag instead of my 70-200 IS L2.8, so I done the best I could, got a few decent shots but the keeper rate was very low. IS is beneficial in dimly lit hockey arena, even though it does not freeze the subject. With what you have to invest I would seriously consider the new Sigma 70-200 OS, there are few reviews available, but from what I've seen/read it sounds quite decent, and with a very effective IS system.