Kids sports lens?

sWampy wrote in post #2428873
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.

If you would plan to be in one area with it for an extended period of time, a monopod with a ball head attached to the lens is a perfect way to use it.

I don't use my 70-200 as much as shorter lenses, but it is an absolute pleasure to use it whenever the occasion arises. Yes, it's heavy. However, that coupled with the IS makes stable handheld shooting MUCH easier for me than when using lighter (and especially non-IS) equipment. The mass of the lens adds to its stability.

What about the 135L f/2? I am considering this lens for the same type of application. I used my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD lens the other day for a Christmas concert and thought that I needed more reach and a wider aperture.

Does anyone know a site that lists accurate weights of all the different 70-200 lens?
Amazon says : 70-200 f/4 = 1.56 lbs
70-200 f/4 IS = 1.56lbs
70-200 f/2.8 = 1.56lbs
70-200 f/2.8 IS = 2.9lbs

Weight worries me, cause I know if it's to heavy, it will stay at home, or be left in the trunk most of the time. Being in Mississippi, I can't seem to find a camera store with any of these in stock.

sWampy wrote in post #2430071
Does anyone know a site that lists accurate weights of all the different 70-200 lens?
Amazon says : 70-200 f/4 = 1.56 lbs
70-200 f/4 IS = 1.56lbs
70-200 f/2.8 = 1.56lbs
70-200 f/2.8 IS = 2.9lbs

I don't think that's quite right, there's no way the 2.8 non-IS weighs the same as the f/4. I'd imagine it's much closer to the 2.8 IS, if a little lighter.

According to B&H, it's 3.2 lb for the 2.8IS, 2.8 for 2.8 non-IS, 1.7 for f/4 IS, and 1.56 for the f/4 non-IS. These are not lightweight lenses. I've had no problems holding my 2.8non-IS, though towards the end of a football game a little lower back cramping/pain is common-- the solution is just to take some tylenol before the game . I but of course I have no idea what you consider heavy. I will add though that I'm not exactly muscle bound

http://www.usa.canon.c​om/app/pdf/lens/EFLens​Chart.pdf

Id say 70-200 f/4 non IS if you want to save a ton of cash...

You really dont NEED is for shooting sports, IS is for static objects unless you are using a stage 2 pan IS.

Id vote for the 70-200 2.8 non IS if you have the funds. And getting the IS version of that is pretty much cream of the crop.

Id stay away from that crap 70-300 canon lens. Ive owned 2 of them and really didnt like it. Soft after 200mm and AF was slow. So it was basically a 70-200 anyways since IQ after 200 was junk.

70-200 is a very nice lens, no matter what version you get.

Despite really wanting to play with IS, I took everyone's advice and ordered a 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS.

Congrats! I'm still waffling over that lens and the f/4 IS version.

safehaven wrote in post #2426639
I think the f/2.8 is a must for sports. Along with the Canon's, I would consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It is a great lens at a good price. I have seen them as low as $780.00 (ALOT cheaper than I paid for mine <sigh>.

I think you're right.

I'd recommend the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for field sports. You can get both lenses for around 1K. Considering the memories you'll capture, it's a good investment.

any of the 70-200 2.8's will do you very well. As your child gets older, and the fields get bigger, you might want to move on up eventually, but you can never go wrong with the 70-200 2.8's.

They also have very good re-sale value.

Oh and don't be afraid to use a monopod with it. It comes with the tripod ring for it. I have used it and sometimes prefer it as it helps balance out some shots(composition wise).

liza wrote in post #2456466
I think you're right.

I'd recommend the 85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for field sports. You can get both lenses for around 1K. Considering the memories you'll capture, it's a good investment.

I'll most likely pick up a 85mm f/1.8 when I see a good deal on one, but I already have a 50 f/1.4, and a 1.4x tc, so I'm not sure I would gain that much over those 2 combined. I've been told you should use a tc with a 50mm lens, but I have used it and gotten pretty good results. Slightly used the canon was close to the sigma price, and I've always wanted an L lens.