Lens choosing for telephoto.. 70-300mm L or 70-200 f4L?

As per title, looking into shooting sports, basically action and portraits. Will the 200 suffice? Leaning more towards that. Advice please!

If your camera is a ff, then go 70-300L IS USM f4-5.6
Unless you have a 100-400L as well.

Unfortunately, its a T2i which is a crop, so the f4L then?

Ev0d3vil wrote in post #16571328
As per title, looking into shooting sports, basically action and portraits. Will the 200 suffice? Leaning more towards that. Advice please!

for sport , 200 300 was not that big different ( a small crop is done)
while 70 200 F4L IS was really really razor sharp , plus lighting fast focus speed which is famous. it will perform better than 70 300 L in my opinion , also 70 200 F4 is small , internal focus and internal zooming , better weather sealing . 70 200 F4LIS for portraits are good too (some people will bring 70 200 F2.8 IS / IS II over a few prime . ( i got 85L , 135L but i bring 70 200 2.8 II sometimes because i dont need to switch lens too much )

It depends on the sport.

I currently have both the lenses (70-200 f4 IS and 70-300L). I've had the f4 IS for several years and absolutely love it. It's an outstanding lens in every respect, and does a great job for both portraits and action. My issue, over time, has been that it is a bit short for some of the sports I shoot, and its performance declines with an extender. I rented the 70-300L for an event, and was absolutely blown away by its performance. On paper it looks like the f4 IS should be better, but in real life, that's not necessarily the case. I can't say enough good things about the 70-300L; it's a terrific lens.

The advantages of the 70-200 are its small size and internal zoom. The advantages of the 70-300 are the extra reach - which makes quite a difference - and the absolutely killer IS system. It's a little heavier than the f4 IS, but not much. I can carry either lens in my coat pocket.

I'm going to have to sell one of them because I can't afford to keep both (although I would if I could). After using them alongside one another for a couple of months, I'm going to sell the f4 IS. And I never thought I'd be saying that.

In short: if you think you're going to need an extender with the 70-200, buy the 70-300. It's much, much better than the 70-200/extender combo.

If I were starting from scratch today, I'd buy the 70-300L.

If you will mostly be shooting in good light, by all means the 70-300L would give you more flexibility.

In lower light or indoors, the f4 lens would be marginally better. However an f2.8 zoom or even faster prime would be even better.

One question, are talking about the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-200 f/4 IS? I hated the former and from my limited experience with the IS version I though it a far superior lens.

Having shot sports as a main use for my telephoto lens, I'd say go for the 70-200 f/4L. But if I may make a suggestion, go for the 70-200 f/2.8L in a used condition from eBay, B&H, KEH or Craigslist. Most people take care of their stuff especially for resale value. You could easily get a 2.8L non-IS for $900. I shoot with that lens and it's amazing. I have no problem with the non-IS factor of the lens, it works perfect. Jumping 2/3rd or a stop to capture or freeze motion isn't bad when shooting RAW.

Best way to know: Rent it or borrow from a friend or relative who has one (if possible).
I'd recommend BorrowLenses, they have great customer service and work efficiently.

Ev0d3vil wrote in post #16571328
As per title, looking into shooting sports, basically action and portraits. Will the 200 suffice? Leaning more towards that. Advice please!

Heya,

Why even look at zooms? Get a prime.

EF 200mm F2.8L II ($700?)
EF 400mm F5.6L ($1300?)

Crank ISO to 3200~6400 for indoor sports. Shoot.

Very best,

I never had the 70-200 f4 but I don't think it has any advantage over the 70-300 other than a slightly bigger aperture in the long end.

I can't imagine it is sharper as my 70-300 is nearly as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 ii if not just as sharp. The IS on the 70-300 is probably the most stable I have ever used on any lens.

I guess u can add teleconverters to the 70-200 and I think it's cheaper. But really in my opinion it has very little advantage over the other while the other has some tremendous advantages. Choice is clear to me.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16572551
Heya,

Why even look at zooms? Get a prime.

EF 200mm F2.8L II ($700?)
EF 400mm F5.6L ($1300?)

Crank ISO to 3200~6400 for indoor sports. Shoot.

Very best,

you know, i'm contemplating on renting them, just for a portrait shoot outdoors. I will need to rent a monopod too right? How will it work on my 550D?

Xyclopx wrote in post #16573751
I never had the 70-200 f4 but I don't think it has any advantage over the 70-300 other than a slightly bigger aperture in the long end.

I've never used the 70-300 but I doubt that it can focus nearly as fast as the 70-200, which can be a huge advantage for sports (which is what I use my 70-200 for most of the time). When I tried my 70-200 for the first time I was blown away by how fast it can focus. Before that I was using the 55-250 for shooting sports, and while it had pretty good image quality I lost some shots every time out because it couldn't focus fast enough.

And did I mention how fast the 70-200 can focus?

groundloop wrote in post #16574365
I've never used the 70-300 but I doubt that it can focus nearly as fast as the 70-200, which can be a huge advantage for sports (which is what I use my 70-200 for most of the time). When I tried my 70-200 for the first time I was blown away by how fast it can focus. Before that I was using the 55-250 for shooting sports, and while it had pretty good image quality I lost some shots every time out because it couldn't focus fast enough.

And did I mention how fast the 70-200 can focus?

looks like only ceegee can settle this, but I can say the 70-300 is plenty fast. it's as fast as any other lens I have ever used, if not faster. but like you, I upgraded from the 55-250, and yeah, either lens is a world of a difference in terms of focusing speed. I missed lots of shots on the 55-250 cause of that. can't use that excuse no more.

there was a comment earlier about its weather sealing. I've also used that lens in light rain with no problems.

I've been thinking about putting up a thread asking if there's any advantage of the 70-200 f4 is over the 70-300l, but hopefully someone can clarify in this thread. I still think the only advantage, which to me is not a big deal in the real world, is the slightly larger aperture at one end. well, and the one humongous advantage I suppose, which actually does matter to me, is to be able to use the canon teleconverters. I realize that there are lots of disadvantages to using teleconverters with the canon's slower telephotos, but I still would like to use them for static subjects, say of the moon or such.

I was thinking about the 70-200mm f2.8 by Tamron, how does it compare to Canon's f4L? Budget limited. If i get the F4L, i cant get a flash for my portrait stuff which i intend to learn!

If you are using a crop camera then the 70-200mm L (IS0) would be my choice. This equivalent to 112- 320mm on a full frame camera, and also can be used with the 1.4 Extender which takes it up to the equivalent of 448mm. With the latest Canon crop camera, the 70D I have found that 1000 ISO is perfectly practical without any appreciable noise, and one can go much higher, so the maximum of f4 aperture of the lens becomes less of a problem. For value form money the 300mm f4.0L. IS. USM is excellent, and again one can use the 1.4 extender.

Some years ago I went on safari to South Africa with a Canon 350D and the non IS version (the IS wasn't available) of the 70-200mm f4 L lens and the 1.4 extender, and came back with what I consider a large number of very acceptable photos.