70-200 f4L For Motorsport?

Another question, how does the non IS version compare with the IS version for the f/4

Works great if you can get close.

peeaanuut wrote in post #14929731
as far as 70-200 for motorsports, its an excellent lens. Because it is clearer than your 75-300 you will be able to do a bit more cropping and get a very usable image. Even with a 1.4 extender you will be bumped tp f5.6 but you still can get an excellent image. I am currently using a 70-200 2.8 non IS and love it! You cant go wrong.

...Is that the Long Beach Grand Prix?
<3 King Taco

yeah, both are LB. The red one is from 2006 and the yellow one is from 2012.

Is it hard to get photo passes there? I missed this year, but since I'm new to LBC, I'd love to get there next time.

I have never had a photo pass. Those are from the general admin areas. I usually find a photog hole on the inside fence and then ride the spectator fence so I end up shooting passed it. You can get the super photo pass, but its like $250 for the weekend and the spots are decent, but not great. You do get some pit access for practice I think, but no hot pit access for any races.

The 70-200mm f4 is better than most people that use it. Great lens, light as heck, I shoulda probobly kept mine (but I ain't giving up my 2.8 nonIS!!)

chopperdave wrote in post #14933744
The 70-200mm f4 is better than most people that use it. Great lens, light as heck, I shoulda probobly kept mine (but I ain't giving up my 2.8 nonIS!!)

I had the option and went for the same. But I cant hate on the f4 at all. Great lens.

Having held a 70-200 f/2.8 and seen what it can do, I know I want one. But, I will be keeping my f/4 for outdoor sports and such, because it is such a nice lens to carry around.

The 70-200 is an amazing lens, regardless its F/4 without IS or the latest 2.8 II IS.

There is no real need for 2.8 for out door, or even IS.
The F/4 can be easily hand-held as its much lighter.

The only problem is how far you are shooting. If its too far, you can use a 1.4 TC and still get better IQ than your 75-300.

f/2.8 is handy if you are doing something that you want that extra bit of depth of field isolation. But usually I'm shooting sports or similar with the 70-200, so I don't want it too narrow to begin with.

I personally prefer using primes over zooms, and only bought the 70-200 f/4L non-IS to shoot paintball, which here is generally always outdoors during the day. (There is The Dome in Moncton, but I haven't gotten around to there, and haven't seen what the light is like.) I figured the f/4 would be more than good enough for my needs, and I would never need that f/2.8.

However, I recently got into shooting Roller Derby,... And a dimly lit with odd lighting seems to be a rule or something with the sport.

Luckless wrote in post #14934612
Having held a 70-200 f/2.8 and seen what it can do, I know I want one. But, I will be keeping my f/4 for outdoor sports and such, because it is such a nice lens to carry around.

Yup. Having rented the 2.8L IS multiple times, and now owning the f4L...I think having both is just easier. I don't need the weight and heft of the 2.8L IS all the time, as it's much easier to lug the f4L around.

£400 isn't bad for a used 70-200 f4, depending on condition, but I would try to haggle with him to get it below £400 to maybe £390 or so.

For trackside panning shots 70-200 is a very useful lens. For head-on and 3/4 shots it can be a bit short, though that depends where you're able to stand and which circuit you're at.

The Canon f4 version is cheaper, considerably lighter and more compact than the f2.8 version. If you can land a clean used version, you'll not lose any money on it should you wish to move it on.

I like my Sigma 70-200 and have snagged some decent Motorsport shots with it. The OS version gets good reviews and being f2.8 opens up the option to fit 1.4x or 2.0x adapters and still have autofocus..

These shots were taken with a non is 70-200 2.8