new lens, which one?

Hallo,
I have a canon 60D, 17-55, 55-250 and the 35mm (non is).
I'm not a pro, I shoot for my pleasure and have no preferences for any kind of photography, at the moment I like them all and like to try new things, sometimes moving out of the comfort zone.
Next fall I'll be shooting for a local soccer team (adults and kids). I'm satisfied with the lenses I own but the upgade fever is somehow catching me, my idea is to upgrade the 55-250 with either:
70-200 f4 non IS (IS would be too expensive)
100 f2.8 macro (non L)
The first would be perfect for soccer, the second has a fast AF, higher aperture and could be ok for soccer and could let me try macro photography, which I've never tried.

Any ideas?

Definitely the 70-200/F4. IS might not be really necessary since you shoot sports, and sports generally need higher shutter speeds anyway. The macro lens is great, but definitely not 'fast AF' (enough for sports). The 70-200/F4 is great for all kinds of shooting, very fast AF, amazing imague quality (miles above the non-L macro) and will shine for sports especially since it's not too heavy either (trust me, the 2.8 is a whole different game!).

I got the 70-200/F2.8 IS simply because I do quite a bit of indoor shooting, weddings etc and need the F2.8 aperture. But when I would not make (some) money of my lenses, and just would want a nice zoom, I would definitely get the 70-200/F4. Another option is the 70-300L. Sold mine because I don't use it all that often, but it's a great lens with an amazing reach. A bit heavier/fatter than the 70-200 (not longer) but quite a bit more expensive too.

If your considering soccer, keep in mind it's a fall sport. You'll be wanting to reach out and keep some decent shutter speed on cloudy days. You're going to be wishing for that 2.8. Buy once cry once. I did soccer for years and now do lacrosse (still do soccer, just more lacrosse). Trust me, you'll want the 2.8. Sooner or later you might have to put a 1.4 T/C on that once you get to full regulation fields which will put you at f/4. That's my situation right now. I shoot with the 1.4 T/C on my 70-200 IS 2.8. And if you ever want to do any portature, the IS comes in real handy. When I was buying my 2.8, there were a lot of f/4's for sale wanting to upgrade to the 2.8. I'm just saying.

I would lean toward the 70-200 F4 also (of the OPs listed options). For action/sports, you will probably be using shutter speeds that don't require use of IS.

I have the 2.8 MKII, and while it was a decent outlay for a hobby shooter, I know I'll get years of use from it with my 3 kids in sports and even for portrait/candids. Obviously it's not in the budget for all though.

silma wrote in post #15941011
Hallo,
I have a canon 60D, 17-55, 55-250 and the 35mm (non is).
I'm not a pro, I shoot for my pleasure and have no preferences for any kind of photography, at the moment I like them all and like to try new things, sometimes moving out of the comfort zone.
Next fall I'll be shooting for a local soccer team (adults and kids). I'm satisfied with the lenses I own but the upgade fever is somehow catching me, my idea is to upgrade the 55-250 with either:
70-200 f4 non IS (IS would be too expensive)
100 f2.8 macro (non L)

If you're going to shoot soccer, you'll appreciate the much faster AF of the 70-200 f4. It will do a fine job on outdoor sports in good light. You will, however, miss IS for other types of photography; it's a trade-off. Given your budget, though, it seems that this would be the best move for you.

The 100 macro is probably going to be too short for soccer, and the AF, while fast, isn't better than that of the 70-200.

I don't agree with other posters who have said you'll definitely want the f2.8 zoom at some point. If you're shooting for pleasure, the f4 is a fine piece of equipment. The f2.8 zooms are large, heavy beasts; I used to own one, and sold it because I hated the weight. I've never missed the f2.8 because I only use the lens outdoors and f4 is perfectly acceptable for that. And it's important to respect your budget. Photography is a hobby that can eat money if you let it!

Best of luck with your choice!

It really does come down to light, doesn't it? I have a 70-300L but I use it outdoors in sunny Florida. The comments on fall soccer are accurate, I think.

Sometimes, you have to bite the bullet and save up for what will work well in your individual situation. It isn't always easy advice to follow but it tends to be the right advice. I hate to say it, but I think the OP needs the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II for the given application.

PS: I was typing my post when ceegee posted his/hers. Weight is also a valid concern. The difficulty is defining "good light". The 60D isn't a high ISO king so that is part of the equation. These decisions aren't often black and white.

lapino wrote in post #15941024
Definitely the 70-200/F4. IS might not be really necessary since you shoot sports, and sports generally need higher shutter speeds anyway. The macro lens is great, but definitely not 'fast AF' (enough for sports). The 70-200/F4 is great for all kinds of shooting, very fast AF, amazing imague quality (miles above the non-L macro) and will shine for sports especially since it's not too heavy either (trust me, the 2.8 is a whole different game!).

I got the 70-200/F2.8 IS simply because I do quite a bit of indoor shooting, weddings etc and need the F2.8 aperture. But when I would not make (some) money of my lenses, and just would want a nice zoom, I would definitely get the 70-200/F4. Another option is the 70-300L. Sold mine because I don't use it all that often, but it's a great lens with an amazing reach. A bit heavier/fatter than the 70-200 (not longer) but quite a bit more expensive too.

I wouldnt say the 70-200 has IQ miles above the non L 100mm macro... In fact from all the reviews the two 100 macros are said to have amazing IQ, ive owned the 100L and can confirm that, probably the 100 macro has as good or better IQ then the 70-200 f4 at 100mm

I'd like to add some information:
my shooting soccer will be for the local team, they will not need photos of every match, it's going to be more like "some matches are covered with photos", the young kids of the the team may want some shots of them in action, maybe we'll be making a calendar or a stickers album, stuff like that.
moreover I do not want to be shooting ONLY soccer, remember I do it just for pleasure.
your advices and experiences are really helpful, keep them coming!

If you are interested in a 100mm, the 100 f2 should be your choice over the 2.8 macro. Crazy fast AF (like the 85 1.8).

There's always the option of renting too. If in doubt, rent a f/4 one weekend, and the 2.8 the next. Conditions will probably be different, but you'll get a feel for the difference in the lens anyway. Weight was never an issue for me being I went straight for the 2.8, and elected to have the IS just because of the amount of people upgrading from non IS and the possibility that I might want to do a portrait of my kids. I do portraits now, so the IS comes in handy. I'm not just a hobbyist any more, so my decisions are different for me now. But I was at one time, it just happened to develop into a business. But just so you know, my hobby started out taking shots of soccer games my wife coached and that our kids were in a long time ago. I'm still using the same lens I bought back then, the 2.8 IS, and no regrets what so ever. I had a budget back then too. But I'm a firm believer in buy once.

I started out sharing photos (giving away for free), then adding expense to these photos, and people were willing to buy. Now I charge for all my photos and have turned it into a business. It's a side business and I'm getting more and more gigs all the time. But it all started out with my 70-200 2.8 IS Mk I. So I'm sorry if I'm a little biased about this lens, but it's made me the photographer that I am today. It's my money maker. The OP is in a place I was once in, a hobbyist looking for good glass. And yeah, it's twice the price of a non IS 2.8, but like I said, try one out for size and you be the final judge. I did have the opportunity to use a 2.8 IS before I bought. As a matter of fact the photo that sold me on the 2.8 IS brought tears to my wifes eyes. She coached my son and he was a pill (along the same path as "don't teach your wife to golf", it never works out in the end), and after scoring his first goal, I caught this image:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.happyvalley​photography.com …101336&k=kMSn5v​x&lb=1&s=A

nice story Grumpy_one. I like that your screen name is Grumpy_one and that your website is Happy Valley Photography