Which 70-200mm lens to buy?

I hate the lens buying process (except the part where I get a new lens)

Sold my XSi to be able to buy a zoom lens to shoot my sons sports (mostly football, track and baseball.) Will be using it on my 50D. Can't decide between the 2.8L, 4L, 4L IS, and the Tameron 2.8.

Any of those lenses are in my price range just don't know how much difference the 2.8 will make over the 4 and the IS will make over the non-IS.

Thinking the 2.8 is a LOT of weight for me to be dragging around and is at the top of my price range ...

So confused! Any help is MUCH appreciated!

I own the 2.8 II. If I were to do it over again, I would probably get the 4 IS. Im definitely an amateur and do not make any money from photography, so while the 2.8 II is a fun toy, its really overkill for me and I get just as good of photos w/ my friends 4 IS since I almost exclusively use the lens outdoors.

For daytime sports, the f/4 (non-IS) will do just fine. You'll want a fast shutter speed anyway so IS won't make much (if any) difference. Its pretty cheap too. For night time sports, you'll need something faster than f/2.8.

For what you are shooting I would suggest the f4IS. For the following reasons. Its a newer design than the F4 non-IS, not just adding IS but a total optical upgrade. Until canon released the 2.8 MKII version it was canon's sharpest zoom. Its lighter than the 2.8 versions. IS makes it a more versatile lens as you can handhold it at as low as 1/30 of second. That wont help for sports but it makes it much more user friendly lens.

Key word you said is sports = shutter speed!

if you are outdoor then F4 nonIS will do you fine, it's plenty sharp and I loved mine (I only upgraded to IS for video)

IS will only help get you no camera shake photos under 1/250th shutter speed down to around 1/30th BUT to stop action you are going to want /400 to /640 minimum so IS won't matter at all.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13903076
For what you are shooting I would suggest the f4IS. For the following reasons. Its a newer design than the F4 non-IS, not just adding IS but a total optical upgrade. Until canon released the 2.8 MKII version it was canon's sharpest zoom. Its lighter than the 2.8 versions. IS makes it a more versatile lens as you can handhold it at as low as 1/30 of second. That wont help for sports but it makes it much more user friendly lens.

I have both the f/4 and f/4 IS. As far as sharpness, they're the same as far as I can tell. My non-IS one might even be a hair sharper if anything. Its certainly not enough to worry about either way. The non-IS one is bargain of a lens.

mike_d wrote in post #13903130
I have both the f/4 and f/4 IS. As far as sharpness, they're the same as far as I can tell. My non-IS one might even be a hair sharper if anything. Its certainly not enough to worry about either way. The non-IS one is bargain of a lens.

I've had both, and My IS version was noticeably sharper. The non-IS is no slouch, but for the money and the added versatility I stand by my recommendation.

Thanks for the quick responses!!

Agreed, I don't think the 2.8 is probably right for me. I won't notice the difference and it's not worth the weight to have to carry it around.

I am a little torn between the IS and nonIS though. You never know what else I might want to use it for - pics of the kids, some basketball games, other misc things so the IS may be worth it.

Anyone have any experience with the Tamron version at all? Does their IF mean image stabilized?

mike_d wrote in post #13903063
For daytime sports, the f/4 (non-IS) will do just fine. You'll want a fast shutter speed anyway so IS won't make much (if any) difference. Its pretty cheap too. For night time sports, you'll need something faster than f/2.8.

^ EXACTLY... I shot football last year. Day games the F4 was fine. At night I need 2.8 all the way..

Personally I owned the 70-200mm f/4L IS,
and I really like to use it outside to take some portrait,
but I tried to use this lens inside,
sometimes I have to put up my ISO to have a sufficient light,
so if you will mostly use it inside,you should get the 2.8L

mike_d wrote in post #13903130
I have both the f/4 and f/4 IS. As far as sharpness, they're the same as far as I can tell. My non-IS one might even be a hair sharper if anything. Its certainly not enough to worry about either way. The non-IS one is bargain of a lens.

I also own(ed) both, and the difference in sharpness is very slight IME, certainly not worth the money over the non-IS especially for sports where IS doesn't matter, so I agree with you completely both in that the non-IS is a bargain, and the difference in IQ is nothing to worry about.

However, OP, if you want 2.8, look into the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, second only to the canon Mk II in terms of IQ, and costs the same as the canon f4 IS.

tracyvb wrote in post #13903183
, some basketball games, other misc things so the IS may be worth it.

Even the 2.8 may not be enough for basketball. For that you want to consider something like the 85 1.8 or 100 f2 primes.

People are telling me the Sigma 70-200 with IS is great.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13903160
I've had both, and My IS version was noticeably sharper. The non-IS is no slouch, but for the money and the added versatility I stand by my recommendation.

Maybe I just got a really good non-IS one. When I got the IS version, the first thing I did was shoot both at a test chart from my tripod. They were super close but the non-IS was maybe slightly sharper. Next to my 100 macro, either is easily the sharpest lens in my collection. In real-world shooting, they're the same as long as the shutter speed is high enough to negate the IS's advantage.

tracyvb wrote in post #13903043
I hate the lens buying process (except the part where I get a new lens)

Sold my XSi to be able to buy a zoom lens to shoot my sons sports (mostly football, track and baseball.) Will be using it on my 50D. Can't decide between the 2.8L, 4L, 4L IS, and the Tameron 2.8.

Any of those lenses are in my price range just don't know how much difference the 2.8 will make over the 4 and the IS will make over the non-IS.

Thinking the 2.8 is a LOT of weight for me to be dragging around and is at the top of my price range ...

So confused! Any help is MUCH appreciated!

Between the 70-200's I would look at the f4 or possibly the f4IS.

But if I were reaching into my camera bag for a lens to shoot what you are shooting I would grab my 35-350mm L. It is an older lens but a great lens still. Twice as wide and almost 2 times the zoom you get with the 70-200. Being used it will be more budget friendly than the 70-200 f4IS. Worthy a look (For the record - It is smaller and lighter than a 70-200 f2.8 IS) http://www.fredmiranda​.com …howproduct.php?​product=15