Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L USM vs Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

so is the panning feature on the IS lens good for sports?

KevC wrote in post #2150290
In my opinion, you can't really do anything with f/2.8 at night either... lol. Look for primes...

I think that's true.

Also remember things like the weight of the two lenses, and remember that f2.8 may be better in low light conditions, but it might also be hard to work with due to the more narrow depth of field.

I personally never see myself buying a lens to shoot it at one aperture (wide open) especially when that is almost always not the sharpest aperture from my understanding.

Go for the 2.8 - mine is a beautiful lens - razor sharp and great in low light. I would find the IS useful but can manage without.

I've pretty much given up on 2.8 lenses to get the job done for indoor sporting events. It's all about the fast primes. Of course, giving up the ability to zoom can feel limiting at times, so it's always best to really know the exact scenario you are up against and choose accordingly.

Kadman wrote in post #2151115
I've pretty much given up on 2.8 lenses to get the job done for indoor sporting events. It's all about the fast primes. Of course, giving up the ability to zoom can feel limiting at times, so it's always best to really know the exact scenario you are up against and choose accordingly.

Yeah I think the 85 1.8 and 135 f2.0L are the two lenses for indoor sports, no? Maybe even outdoors.

What you should actually ask your self is....How much shooting do I do at night or very low light? I do 99% of my shooting during the morning to dusk time so my answer was the F/4

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151188
Yeah I think the 85 1.8 and 135 f2.0L are the two lenses for indoor sports, no? Maybe even outdoors.

And even the 50mm 1.4. I love shooting basketball from under the basket and the 85mm is just too tight on a 1.6 crop body, but the 50mm is just right. On a full frame I would expect the 85mm to do the trick in this scenario. Also important to note that I'm shooting grade school games. If it were a larger gym and you had to shoot from farther back, then again the 85mm would probably be what I would select. But in our gym I'm RIGHT on the baseline.

Kadman wrote in post #2151332
And even the 50mm 1.4. I love shooting basketball from under the basket and the 85mm is just too tight on a 1.6 crop body, but the 50mm is just right. On a full frame I would expect the 85mm to do the trick in this scenario. Also important to note that I'm shooting grade school games. If it were a larger gym and you had to shoot from farther back, then again the 85mm would probably be what I would select. But in our gym I'm RIGHT on the baseline.

Heh, yeah, I'm shooting high school, and will be for the next 4 years . Should be fun, i'll be doing tons of shooting for the school and who knows, perhaps this could get me noticed for the future.

I'm wondering, our school gym has stands that go averagely high. Wondering if I get the 200 f2.8 (prime) to match my 70-200 F4, if I can shoot from there with the 2.8 (not sure if I'll always be allowed right on the court, and if I always want to be right on the court.)

ChrisBlaze wrote in post #2150950
Ritz has it on sale right now for $649, I might pick it up.

i just checked it out and it was only for the sigma mount. do they have one for the canon for that price? also saw there's a macro version of it that costs 800+...

whats the difference between a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a prime f/2.8? zoom...

I think the biggest super fast prime is the 135mm f/2... short of that you're lookin at a 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4. I believe there is a discontinued 200mm f/2 but it was outragously expensive.

sirsloop wrote in post #2151810
I believe there is a discontinued 200mm f/2 but it was outragously expensive.

Actually, its a 200 f/1.8, but yes it is outrageously expensive, but what a lens!

Look at what sports pros use - 300 or 400mm f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 would be the main lenses in their arsenal.
If you can't get by with f2.8 to shoot sport their must be something wrong or they are playing in the dark. The 2.8 should meet your needs.

Go for the 2.8IS - well worth the money especially in low light conditions.

ChrisBlaze wrote in post #2150352
I will be trying to stand on the fence line and maybe up in the stands,so what do you guys recomend for primes? Is the EF 135mm f/2L USM any good?

I personally think the 135f/2L will probably be too short, shooting from stands and on the fence line. For less money, you could go with a 200 f/2.8L, which on a crop body would give you a bit more reach.
I just got one myself last week, and it will take some getting used to. However, it's faster focusing than the 70-200 f/2.8...plus I got more keepers as I wasn't trying to zoom in/out on moving subjects.

I wound up shooting this with a 20D/EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM combo. Sharp enough for 20 seconds at f/16 ISO-200 (5500K)... no IS involved with this tripod shot. Yes, that diagonal streak is an airplane arriving at O'Hare.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.