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

Are you going to be making any money with this lens? Its not my place to tell you where to spend your money, but 1700 bucks is a hell of a lens for a hobby!! The only reason i'm getting the 70-200 f/2.8 is cause I can break even on it in a couple months.

ChrisBlaze wrote in post #2151031
so is the panning feature on the IS lens good for sports?

Honestly, I don't know as I don't own the 70-200. I have read and seen some test shots of panning on the IS that looks pretty good, but it's much better if some of the seasoned posters can enlighten you on that subject matter. 2.8 apeture is plenty fast for sports. If you look at the sidelines, those that shoot for a living all use 2.8 apeture lenses at football games. Anything faster would make focusing a nightmare since everyone is constantly on the move and the shallow DOF will not be able to keep things in focus long enough (as always, there's exceptions). If the lens is primarily for games and you can shoot from the sidelines with a steady tripod, IS is not necessary. If you do mostly hand-held, then it can be invaluable. So upon further reflection, I suppose 2.8 would be a good choice.

I rarely wish my 70-200mm f4 L was faster... Sure, there are times I wish it was WAY faster, but rarely do I say "if I only had ONE more stop.." I could get the shot. There are times I wish it was f1.4, or f1.8, but almost never f2.8.

braduardo wrote in post #2154458
I rarely wish my 70-200mm f4 L was faster... Sure, there are times I wish it was WAY faster, but rarely do I say "if I only had ONE more stop.." I could get the shot. There are times I wish it was f1.4, or f1.8, but almost never f2.8.

Yeah, that's the same thing I think. You can always get one stop by adjusting your shutter speed slightly or your ISO, but getting a few more always is difficult. I think a lot of us wish they still produced that 200mm Canon Prime with that oh so wide aperture .

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2154495
Yeah, that's the same thing I think. You can always get one stop by adjusting your shutter speed slightly or your ISO, but getting a few more always is difficult. I think a lot of us wish they still produced that 200mm Canon Prime with that oh so wide aperture .

Awww... Come on... You can still get one for like $4000... What's stopping you? That would be an AWESOME lens to have.

braduardo wrote in post #2154506
Awww... Come on... You can still get one for like $4000... What's stopping you? That would be an AWESOME lens to have.

You know, if Canon still offered servicing on it, it would be a lens that many of us would probably consider.

I still would like a 200mm 2.8 or 2.0 prime with IS. I have a 70-200 F4L on the way and eventualy figure I'll have a 85 1.8, 135 f2.0L and 200mm 2.8 primes, so I will have speed in the general 70-200 area without a 70-200 2.8.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2154513
You know, if Canon still offered servicing on it, it would be a lens that many of us would probably consider.

Maybe... But you would have the same people complaining that even though they can take a shot in an unlit cave at night, it doesn't have IS.

I think the 200mm f2.8 would be pretty nice with IS. On the other hand, I don't get too much camera shake at 200mm.

braduardo wrote in post #2154526
Maybe... But you would have the same people complaining that even though they can take a shot in an unlit cave at night, it doesn't have IS.

I think the 200mm f2.8 would be pretty nice with IS. On the other hand, I don't get too much camera shake at 200mm.

Yeah, I would like the 200m f2.8 with IS, jsut becasue it's so light already and black (I don't like white glass, it kind of attracts attention and I like the sealthier look better.)

I'm trying to get ready for the pro-bowll in Feb here in Hawaii. I've never shot sports before so I wanted to practice shooting High School Football and maybe some college football games.
I know in the college games I'll be in the stands, so I had to rule out the 135mm f/2. Would the 70-200mmL f/4 or the Simga 70-200 f/2 work if I crank the ISO up to 800 or so?

To be honest, if you are in the stands, going up from 135 to 200 isn't going to get you much at all. I've bopped back and forth between the two and the difference (again from that sort of distance) is negligible. Sorry if that puts a kink in anything!

Just ordered the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS...should be here in the morning...it's already in my gear list...and it is for my hobby in retirement...

The primary purpose? PA Whitetail Deer...they sit around in the dim shadows of the woods looking out and make great photo subjects...

I also take a lot of pictures at a theater concert venue, again as a hobby and as a paid patron...the best photos posted here at the forum are taken in dim stage light with this lens...although I can't use this lens at the venue, it's great to have it if/and when needed...I plan to use a TC occasionally too...

Kadman wrote in post #2155023
To be honest, if you are in the stands, going up from 135 to 200 isn't going to get you much at all. I've bopped back and forth between the two and the difference (again from that sort of distance) is negligible. Sorry if that puts a kink in anything!

Do you mean like the difference isn't much when you can just walk closer and further away, and when your in the stand from that perspective 65mm is not all that much?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2155113
Do you mean like the difference isn't much when you can just walk closer and further away, and when your in the stand from that perspective 65mm is not all that much?

I think he means that the FOV just isn't that different. While there is a huge difference from 20mm to 30mm, there isn't much at all from 200-300mm.

braduardo wrote in post #2155283
I think he means that the FOV just isn't that different. While there is a huge difference from 20mm to 30mm, there isn't much at all from 200-300mm.

Ah, right, I get it .

The 2.8 is really very important for sports-- the extra stop really does help a lot, especially for badly lit highschool games.