70-200 2.8 vs 4IS for soccer

Hello guys, I'm curently having a dilemma between these lenses: 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS vs 70-200 f/4IS.

I'm going to start shooting soccer (football) and the lenses I got (see my sig.) won't really help so I decided to invest in my first L glass , the mighty 70-200. My budget is limited so I can't really go for the "2.8 IS II".

Where I live soccer games are played at night so the immediate choice would be 2.8, but I've read that the f/4IS is razor sharp.

I would like to invest in a piece of glass that will help me in the soccer games but also in general photography, where I live it's tough to get money to invest in glass so I don't want to buy the 'wrong one'. The main use will be for soccer games.

I use the 70-200 2.8 IS II for sports and it's my favorite sports lens, so of the two choices you are considering, the 70-200 4.0 IS would be my pick since you will probably shoot in bright light, the aperature won't be a problem. Either lens is excellent and in bright light, you won't need to slow down the shutter speed to get good exposure.

Agustin.Reyes wrote in post #17078795
Hello guys, I'm curently having a dilemma between these lenses: 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS vs 70-200 f/4IS.

I'm going to start shooting soccer (football) and the lenses I got (see my sig.) won't really help so I decided to invest in my first L glass , the mighty 70-200. My budget is limited so I can't really go for the "2.8 IS II".

Where I live soccer games are played at night so the immediate choice would be 2.8, but I've read that the f/4IS is razor sharp.

I would like to invest in a piece of glass that will help me in the soccer games but also in general photography, where I live it's tough to get money to invest in glass so I don't want to buy the 'wrong one'. The main use will be for soccer games.

Given the above, your choice should most likely be the 2.8 version, even if the f/4 IS might be sharper.

Personally, I think you have to consider how much value your lens will retain. You don't NEED IS for sport, because you should be shooting at a much faster shutter speed than makes IS worthwhile. However, a non-IS lens is probably not as desirable as an IS version, and therefore harder to sell on. F4 is fine if you are just going to shoot day-time games. Probably pretty useless under floodlights. Decide on your budget and go for what you can afford. (I have a f2.8 IS version, btw!)

You know what isn't sharp? Motion blur or excessive noise because your lens wasn't fast enough.

Get the 2.8 IS, you won't regret it. Unfortunately the 60D can't handle the higher ISO, so you will need as much help as you can get to raise your shutter speed.

Thing is with soccer you need to be using a shutter of around 1/1000

If it's under floodlighting you deffo will need the 2.8 as the extra stop will make a big difference.. Especially when you will be having to push the ISO on a crop camera..

You don't need IS..

ShotByTom wrote in post #17082106
Get the 2.8 IS, you won't regret it. Unfortunately the 60D can't handle the higher ISO, so you will need as much help as you can get to raise your shutter speed.

Really? I shoot mine at 6400 with frame-able results. So do lots of other folks. Perhaps a gander at the 'high-ISO' thread is warranted? To be sure, at that level, proper exposure and post-processing are essential. The camera is quite capable; any ISO limitations imposed on the 60D come from the shooter.

Have you considered a 2.8 mk1 IS?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17082128
Really? I shoot mine at 6400 with frame-able results. So do lots of other folks. Perhaps a gander at the 'high-ISO' thread is warranted? To be sure, at that level, proper exposure and post-processing are essential. The camera is quite capable; any ISO limitations imposed on the 60D come from the shooter.

High ISO night football from a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and a Canon T2i, the 60D's stablemate.

Great examples. The 60D, and in fact any Canon DSLR since the T1i (at least) is quite good at 6400. Newer bodies are incrementally better.

70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, all the way. I love mine and I'm not looking to replace it for any reason. In low-light sports, aperture trumps IS.

On top of that, that thin DoF just looks nicer.

well, in my opinion, the 2.8 is the one that will meet your needs (as you described above)

this lens is really that good and could be use for sport to portraits

and in the future, you can make a poor mans 400mm by adding an 2x extender for day time sports

as for being less sharp; i would like to see the proof of that

this will be a lens you keep for ever

I want to thank all of you for taking the time to share your thoughts and help me For a moment I wasn't going to make this thread but I've always loved the PotN community.

Now I have another question

Is the Canon 1D MK III a +1 in everything from the 1D MKII N? (for sports)

Agustin.Reyes wrote in post #17086849
Is the Canon 1D MK III a +1 in everything from the 1D MKII N? (for sports)

I have not owned or used the IIn, but have the II and the III, and in my experience, the III is better in every way compared to the II.