My son is in his second season of lacrosse. Last season I shot the games with my 70-200 F4 IS. I had gone back and forth on the F4 IS vs. the 2.8 non-IS and I'm still not sure I made the right choice. While I got great shots, I feel that the subject could have been seperated from the background a little more and at the shutter speed I was using the IS was of no consequence. That being said, every time I have used a non-IS lens I have experienced unacceptable shake.
I am now considering adding another lens and I can't decide between the 400mm F5.6 or the 300mm F4.0 IS. I will be shooting from the sidelines which means the players shouldn't be more than 45 yards away at the most. My son is playing D4 which uses a half field, for those who know youth lacrosse.
I have seen some videos from sports photographers who have said that they don't use any lens with less than a 2.8 aperture. Would I be better off upgrading my 70-200 F4 IS to a 2.8 IS rather than getting a 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6? Or do you think I can get acceptable results using a 300 or 400? Acceptable to me means worthy of posting to a Facebook page and distributing to parents who may or may not want to print the photos.
I guess of all the problems one could have, deciding between these options is about as good as one could hope for. But it still bothers me.
By the way, for those who don't know the sport of lacrosse, it is a blast! There is a ton of action and opportunity to get good shots. I had several occasions to get a series of players taking shots on goal where the ball was frozen in mid-air. It is so much fun that I am considering renting a 300 or 400 2.8 lens when we have a tournament.