Kids sports lens?

Tim Sheridan wrote in post #2427262
The 70-200 is a great lens for sports, but....as mentioned above you probably won't like f/4 if you follow indoor sports. I have a 70-210 f/4 that I used alot with 800 film and always struggled with indoor lighting. Digital + ISO 1600 helps, but not as much as f/2.8 would (or a 200mm f/2)

That's why I'm torn, I figure he's 4, it will be years before he's into fast moving indoor sports, like basketball, so buy then who knows what might be available. The 70-200 f/4 IS interests me since it's IS is said to gain 3 f-stops, that should make up for a lot of good closeups at plays and school programs without having to crawl up front, and hunker with a flash.

Can't say enough good things about the 70-200.

I have the 85 1.8 and 70-200 f4 combo for under $1000. I am planning to put the 70-200 on my 20D and the 85 1.8 on the 5D and go for it! The 85 is fast and so sharp but with a lot of bokeh, so be careful with it. The 70-200 is very fast indoors and can easily work with a 1.4x extender. Start with the 85 since you have indoor activities to shoot as well. That's my favorite lens out of all my collection. The pictures are always wonderful. I just shot a whole concert in very bad lighting and the 85 pictures came out beautiful.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

and,

Actions speak louder than words.

Check out my web site:

http://ronmayhew.smugm​ug.com/

99% shot with the 2 lenses below:

Get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for outdoors and the 85 f/1.8 for indoors.

(The non-IS Canon 70-200 would work also, but the Sigma is every bit as good)

Looks like you have already figured out the IS is worthless for fast action sports.

I'd say one of the flavors of the 70-200 would work well, but maybe add a 1.4 TC. I'm a fan of shooting tight, and 300mm is barely long enough for this. Here are some baseball with my crummy Tammy 28-300 from just behind the 1st base coach's box.

Catcher @ 238mm

Shortstop @ 300mm

RHB @ 300mm (from just in front of the home dugout)

Looks like people aren't reading what you're writing, sWampy.

OP has a 1.4 TC already. OP doesn't want 85 1.8 since OP has 50 1.4 + TC. (85 1.8 would be faster than 50 + TC, but I can understand OP not wanting to go this way.)

sWampy, you said you were interested in f/4 IS for low-light stuff? I'd suggest f/2.8 non-IS instead. IS doesn't freeze motion, it just compensates for camera shake. At f/2.8 you will be able to take good handheld shots most of the time, and get shutter speeds fast enough to freeze motion. Admittedly you'll have shallow DOF, but it sounds like that won't be a huge problem for you anyway.

Just my opinion, being a 70-200 2.8 non-IS owner

Oh, and an f/2.8 version will play more nicely with your TC too, given you lose some light with it.

In your price range I would recommend the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) for outdoor small field sports (through 45/60 little league) and the 85/1.8 for indoor.

ronmayhew wrote in post #2427326
Looks like you have already figured out the IS is worthless for fast action sports.

Yes, worthless for fast action sports, but 4-5-6 year old sports aren't super fast anyway, and I'm just amazed at some of the 1/2 second iso 800 shots I got at a rock concert the other night with my 17-85 IS, I'd have bet that I could have gotten some truely killer shots with a 70-200 IS.

I have IS on both of the lenses I use for kids sport photos, and I wouldn't do without it. I can stop motion at 1/160, but I can't handhold 200mm or 300mm at that speed without shake. There are two components here, stop motion and shake. Shake does not go away because you are shooting kids sports.

linarms wrote in post #2427479
Looks like people aren't reading what you're writing, sWampy.

OP has a 1.4 TC already. OP doesn't want 85 1.8 since OP has 50 1.4 + TC. (85 1.8 would be faster than 50 + TC, but I can understand OP not wanting to go this way.)

sWampy, you said you were interested in f/4 IS for low-light stuff? I'd suggest f/2.8 non-IS instead. IS doesn't freeze motion, it just compensates for camera shake. At f/2.8 you will be able to take good handheld shots most of the time, and get shutter speeds fast enough to freeze motion. Admittedly you'll have shallow DOF, but it sounds like that won't be a huge problem for you anyway.

Just my opinion, being a 70-200 2.8 non-IS owner

I had completely made up my mind to get the 70-200 2.8, then I found out that there was a 70-200 4 IS that is about the same price, weighs almost a pound less, it got me second guessing myself again. I might wait and save up some more and get a 2.8IS, but that would be really overkill.

sWampy wrote in post #2426731
Do they focus fast? I know it's leagues apart, but I had one of the sub $100 SIGMA 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG and it took longer to focus and take a picture than my 6 year old casio 3mp camera did, and this tamron 75-300 that I have seems even slower that it. Even the relative cheap 17-85 IS is what I consider fast to focus.

The HSM on the Sigma focuses very fast. Compared to the Canon USM, I cannot honestly say if it is as fast, because I don't have the ability to test them. But I am sure somebody here has compared the two side by side. But what I can tell you for sure is that I have yet to miss a shot do to it not focusing fast enough.

f/2.8 really is invaluable. I shoot my kids basketball and football games. Even shooting wide open, most of the time I need to use ISO 1600. With an f/4 lens, I would not be able to get any shots. Even the brightest of school stadiums and gyms are still dungeons when trying to shoot in them. Whether you get IS or non IS, Canon or Sigma, I'd strongly recomend getting the f/2.8. If your kids stick with sports, eventually, they will be playing something indoors or at night and the f/4 just isn't going to cut it.

safehaven wrote in post #2427906
f/2.8 really is invaluable. I shoot my kids basketball and football games. Even shooting wide open, most of the time I need to use ISO 1600. With an f/4 lens, I would not be able to get any shots. Even the brightest of school stadiums and gyms are still dungeons when trying to shoot in them. Whether you get IS or non IS, Canon or Sigma, I'd strongly recomend getting the f/2.8. If your kids stick with sports, eventually, they will be playing something indoors or at night and the f/4 just isn't going to cut it.

Agreed 100%! Been there..done that, I have begun the transition to better photography!

sWampy wrote in post #2426664
That's what I'm really leaning toward,but the IS just sounds so neat. I guess I just need to find a really good deal on a 2.8 IS.

When I got my 20D, I also got a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS (part of a trio of L zooms) and have found the 70-200 IS to be the most fantastic lens I have ever owned.

I have always used fairly high-end equipment over the years - my primary 35mm film equipment for decades being a couple of Nikon F's with a family of Nikkor prime lenses. Thus, I am not comparing the 70-200 IS against consumer-grade equipment when I tell you that it is superb.

I also bought a Canon 1.4x extender, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS performs extremely well with the extender.

SkipD wrote in post #2428701
When I got my 20D, I also got a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS (part of a trio of L zooms) and have found the 70-200 IS to be the most fantastic lens I have ever owned.

I have always used fairly high-end equipment over the years - my primary 35mm film equipment for decades being a couple of Nikon F's with a family of Nikkor prime lenses. Thus, I am not comparing the 70-200 IS against consumer-grade equipment when I tell you that it is superb.

I also bought a Canon 1.4x extender, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS performs extremely well with the extender.

That's the lens I would really love, I'm just scared it is so big and heavy I would end up not using it as much as I would a lighter lens.