Adding a 70-200 for Non-Pro Youth Sports, looking for ideas and samples?

Hey all,

Looking to add a 70-200 to my Canon kit again, had one in the past, as the kids are getting older and we do more outdoor sports. But, I'm curious what I should really lean on. This is just family and friends outdoor youth sports, like track, soccer, softball, etc. The camera it'll be bolted to is my Canon 1D Mark III. I was at a youth track meet with my daughter and I have a 300 F4L and Tamron 150-600 but those were way too long for youth track, so I had my 50mm F1.8 on my 1D. Yea. It was funny looking, but it's the only non-long-lens I have for Canon anymore. So, maybe it's time to add a 70-200 back so I have an option. I generally like primes, but this is likely where a zoom truly will be needed. I know I will want that 70mm side sometimes.

So that has me thinking.

I went through a lot of flickr pools, looked at sample threads, etc. But ultimately I wasn't able to find much examples of what I'm curious about. So I'm hoping to maybe find a few friendly souls who can share something specific.

I'm debating between F2.8 and F4. Part of me wants to get the F2.8. Part of me wants the F4 to reduce size, cost, weight, etc. I'm also debating... Canon or Tamron for this. Mostly though, I'm looking to add a used lens only, nothing new, so I'm also looking at the older lenses. This has me of course comparing the older non-IS F2.8 versions to the IS versions and the older F4 to the F4L IS versions. And then where the older Tamron F2.8 with VC fits into things.

I've seen plenty of samples of outdoor sports, etc, on the 200mm end of these lenses at F2.8 and F4 and they're pleasing either way, 200mm at F4 is fine, enough DOF to get good focus and still enough isolation to soften otherwise potentially crude backgrounds of gawking people with their cellphones, etc. I'm sure you all know that too well. So I feel that on the long end of things, I don't quite care about the difference of F2.8 and F4 in terms of the DOF and it's more about the light. I'm not without light in Florida, so I think I would be ok at F4 anyways. I'm also not at all afraid of high ISO usage. None of this will be used for anything other than sharing with family & friends anyways in smaller formats.

What I'm having a hard time finding are good examples of sports, etc, at the 70mm side of the lens, at F4 and F2.8 to see the difference there. I feel that it could be the deciding factor on which direction to go. Then again, maybe I need F4 for the DOF so I don't miss focus as they get closer and closer with my aged 1D Mark III. Though, these are kids, so not like it would be truly stressing the system.

Would love to see any 70mm F4 and F2.8 comparisons of sports.
Would love some advice or comments with some experience on this.

Currently considering Canon's 70-200 F4L IS (size, weight reduction, decent IS) and Canon's 70-200 F2.8L non-IS (just for the sharper F2.8 as I'm reading a lot that the version with IS is less sharp wide open) as options, used, and gently looking at Tamonr's 70-200 F2.8 VC but not the newest versions as they're expensive even used. Not considering $1k lenses. Looking at those $600 used options mostly (USA).

Very best,

I spent years shooting outdoor youth sports when my kids were into sports.
I started with a 40D and 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Eventually the 40D was upgraded to 1DII, 1DIII, 7D, and finally 80D. The lens path was upgrade to 70-300 L, and then 100-400 v I & II. For night games (when they were older) my go to setup was 6D and 200/2.8. or put the camera away.
I never had or used a 2.8 zoom, since shooting wide open leaves a lot out of focus. My range was 5.6 to 8. There is a lot you can do for player isolation; most importantly being where you position yourself. There is a ton of ugly background in youth sports and it is tough to get clean background even at 2.8. Take a good position and wait for the action to come to you.
Hope this helps.

Thanks, it does help, the idea of even F2.8 not being able to gently hide unsightly backgrounds at youth sports says a lot. I of course also worry that F2.8 will have one kid in focus and the other right near them not in focus due to shallow DOF.

I figure if I ever get into anything low light, I won't use a zoom at all and will just use an 85mm F1.8 and if that can't do it, then the cameras get put down.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18962613
Thanks, it does help, the idea of even F2.8 not being able to gently hide unsightly backgrounds at youth sports says a lot. I of course also worry that F2.8 will have one kid in focus and the other right near them not in focus due to shallow DOF.

A lot of it depends on the subject to background distance. Of course, you know that. That is why positioning yourself is more important than shooting wide open, IMHO. In soccer, which I have experience with, I tried to isolate two players, following the rule of face, ball, and action. Getting two players in focus with less than 5.6 was very difficult for me.

I think a 70-200 F4 (+/- IS) would be a good option - MUCH lighter than the 2.8 and less $$ of course. I found it to be a very versatile lens and very rarely needed to shoot wider than 5.6 for sports, shooting dogs and kids running around, water-sports, etc.
I had the F4 (non-IS) and really loved it - was super fast and sharp. But, with my kids now playing volleyball, having 2.8 was an absolute must for me.
Since you're getting used, maybe pick up a 70-200 F4L - you can sell it and pretty much make back your money (I had mine for 2 years and made $50 on it when I sold).

Thanks all,

I'm mostly leaning towards the 70-200 F4L IS. I would get the F4L non-IS, I've had it before, but I think the more modern optics and coatings of the F4L IS for like $100 more is likely worth it, plus the IS makes it easier to pan, etc which would be nice.

Anyone have any samples on any body of 70mm end at F4 on players (even if not kids)?

Very best,

I replaced my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (version 1) with the SP Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI VC
http://www.tamron-usa.com/product/lenses​/a009.html
I made money off the upgrade and got a much better lens.

This is the older version, pre- "G2" and it really beats the crap out of the older version one Canon.
The newer G2 I understand is even better.

If money is preventing you from looking at a new MKII Canon, I'd put this lens or the newer G2 at the top of your list. Used the older one is a steal now (I happily paid $800.00 for mine back before the G2 was out, now it can be had for a lot less)

As for Canon older IS verses non IS, yes the Non IS was sharper, but IMHO it was near enough that it made little difference. The F/4 was even sharper. Again they are were very good, but don;t really compare to todays lenses, and that includes that SP VC Tamron.

Bryan's reviews of both at The Digital Picture, both good reads;
https://www.the-digital-picture.com …i-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx

He lists the image quality of the G2 as "best in it's class"

This is as close as I could find right now - 70mm at f5...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hN1​SCx

I've found the best thing I ever bought to use doing kids sports is a small three legged camp stool, that gets me way down to the point where my camera and me are below their eye level. Do that with any lens, and I think you will be happy with the results, and not need to kneel the whole game. Just what I found to be helpful. Best of luck with it.

Thanks all,

That's very helpful. Good example, still pleasing at F4 even on APS-C really. If the kids fill the FOV, there's not much to see in the background anyways.

I generally "take a knee" when shooting as it is to get the below face perspectives, even with wide lenses, so I'm good there. But very good point to manage position on the fields in the first place. I have to get to know some sports to know where to be in general. For now, track is the biggest thing and that one fortunately is easy to know where to be at the end and along the way.

Ultimately I could buy the latest and greatest zooms, but I generally try to be very mindful of budget for something that I won't use weekly, so this puts me more towards the F4 version. While cost matters, it's not the biggest thing. Really for me it's more about just getting what I will use the most often. If the F4L IS is sharp wide open, and lighter weight, I'll take that over the F2.8 with more weight if I'm stopping it down to F4 anyways just to get enough DOF for several kids in good focus. And I'm not concerned with low light, if and when I cross that road, I'll get something appropriate for that, but likely will use an 85mm F1.8 in lower light anyways, with my older bodies (which may or may not even AF well in the first place). Ultimately being realistic this will 95% always be in the outdoors, so I'm not too bothered by the idea of lower light here in Florida.

This will also be from the sensor of an APS-H, so not quite as dense as APS-C but not full frame. The only way this will change in the future is if I get a 1D Mark IV (APS-H too) which changes nothing, or a used 1DX Mark I (goes back to full frame) in the future. There's zero other Canon bodies I will bother with other than the 1D series at this point from a dSLR perspective and I always only buy older bodies anyways. The rest of my kit is mirrorless and not Canon, but the strength there is not action and long lenses, so I let the old 1D bodies from Canon be the day-to-day action beaters with decent old glass.

Very best,

I bought one of those two, very light and small.

My next thought for more rugged storage and seating is to buy a Milwaukee packout base kit, mount a padded seat top to the top of the case, and then put foam blocks inside for storage of lenses, bodies, etc. It sits low, it protects my gear in the rain, and nobody can get my gear if I am sitting on all of it, and it easily wheels around with me, also with the carry handle extended, it gives me back support.

Since you are into oldish gear (and I appreciate that), you might want to look for a canon EF 70-210 f3.5-4.5. I used one a lot for sports and it is as sharp, if not sharper than the Canon 70-200 non-IS. Fast focusing too. You should be able to find one around $100-150. It will give you an idea for the focal length and aperture without significant dollar investment. I still have mine and like it a lot.

Not sure I have any examples @ 70mm. I run the 70-200 F4_IS and for outdoor kids sports find myself mostly @ 100 - 200. I did not find the F2.8 was worth the additional cost & weight for most games, stuck with the F4_IS.

These shots were @ F5.6 and 200mm. Mid day sun. Standard field with a running track circling it. I was standing in the track just off the field.

70-200 II at 70mm, but not youth sports...

Just to complicate things ...

If you're able to get fairly close in most cases, would a 24-105mm f/4L do the job? If so, it would also provide you with some 'wide-end' capability fitting nicely below the Tamron 150-600, which you lack.

I used one to shoot motorcycle trials for a while and found it pretty handy. It also makes a rather good walkaround lens.