help me pick my new L lens purchase out of these two

I am going to get an L lens with some zoom. I am looking at either the 75-200 f/2.8 or the 100-400 f/4.5-(something).

I shoot "soccer mom" type of shots. Just everyday kid stuff...the highest zoom I have right now is to 135 and I am finding that in some situations I need to zoom in farther.

I am thinking there will only be a handful of situations where I would need the 200-400 zoom part but I also think it would be nice to have. With the 75-200 lens the quality should be good enough to crop in closer right??

Michelle K

70-200 is fine for kids sports where the fields are not regulation size, but as the kids grow, so do he fields. I most likely would go for the 100-400 if I was in SD and did not have my current lens line up.

If it were me I'd go for the faster 70-200 f/2.8 and if later I felt the need for some extra reach put a 1.4x Teleconverter behind it.

Isn't the 28-300 the soccer mom special

Oh totally the 70-200 F/4 and 135 f2.0L or 200 f2.8 to cover up for the slowness .

I'm doing HS stuff too, but I am not buying a 100-400 or any bigger lenses for now until they are needed. Why bother? I mean glass does last a long time, but if I'm not using it now, I'de rather get something better suited for what I'm doing now, and later-on upgrade, who knows, Canon could introduce new glass in 5 years time.

MichelleK,
You have to figure what is more important to you?
Lens speed (aperture f/2.8 vs. 4.5-5.6) or lens length (200 or 400). Then your choice should be easy

Love my 70-200 f4. It's a keeper for at least a while longer. It's got sharpness at a fast shutter speed outdoors and it's the least expensive white lens.

Hello MichelleK--
I have the 100-400 F4.5-5.6, and it is a fabulous lens--just used it for two days straight this weekend for a horse show. Its only drawback is its speed--a little slow for indoor events or poor lighting. If you are only using it for outdoor events, it would serve you well, and give you the extra reach that sometimes helps at those events.
On the other hand, the 70-200 F2.8 would be a bit faster if the lighting is ever less than ideal, and you can add a teleconverter and still be faster than the 100-400. I am currently looking very hard at the 70-200 F2.8 for those times that my 100-400 is just not fast enough. That being said, the 100-400 is still an excellent lens--I will never let mine go...Good luck!

RJohn

as the kids grow, they get faster, too, and you need faster shutter speeds.

I'm shooting soccer almost every weekend this fall and have somehow defaulted to the unofficial photog for both my kids teams. This year I moved from the 70-200 F4 to the 2.8. I shoot almost exclusively with my 30D in Av with large apertures to try and separate the kids from the background and I am very pleased with the significant improvement I've gotten in that area with the 2.8. Other aspects of image quality are similar but there is a notable weight penalty with the 2.8. Enough for me that I now feel a need to bring a monopod with me with the 2.8 whereas I was pretty comfortable hand holding the F4 in the past. If I need more reach, I always have the 1.4x converter with me but there are some weeks where it doesn't come out.

Both the 70-200 f/2.8 & 100-400 are excellent lens, you just need to figure out which one best suits your needs I chose the 70-200, which pairs nicely with the 1.4X TC and have been very happy with it.

I'd probably get a 70-200 f/2.8 (also look at the Sigma, if you don't need IS). You can always make it 300 or 400 by buying a teleconverter, but you can't make the 100-400 faster.

P.

Hi,

I have the 70-200 F4L and im sorry i did not go for the 2.8 IS version. If you go for this range id suggest saving a bit more if needed and go straight to the better lens.

It would be the 20-200f2.8 for me.

70-200 2.8 is by far my favorite lens to use. If you get it you won't be disappointed!