Another F2.8 Lens Question

Well, I talked myself out of the 300mm F2.8 L IS, if for no other reason than the fear of walking around with a $4,000 lens on my camera. I decided to go with the 300mm F4L IS instead. I rented the F4L IS version a few weeks ago and was completely satisfied with it.

But, it is becoming obvious that I need a slightly faster lens for soccer at dusk/under lights. I thought about the 70-200mm F2.8L IS but have found many posts stating that the IQ is at the bottom of the 70-200mm family. If I spent $1,700 on that lens I would probably sell my 70-200mm F4L IS, which I am not sure I want to do.

So, I am thinking about the 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS or the 200mm F2.8L. I shoot kids soccer from the sideline so focal length is not a big issue. I figure at 200mm, I will not be zooming out so that is why I thought about the 200mm F2.8L prime. Is the AF fast enough for sports on the 200mm prime? Would I be better off with the 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS or selling my F4L IS and getting the F2.8L IS?

I realize that it is ultimately my decision but I am interested in other thoughts.

Thanks.

If you don't want to sell your f/4 IS and get the f/2.8 IS, I'd get the 200 f/2.8L. Great lens, compact, won't break the bank, and you'll get f/2.8 at a distance.

While the IQ is a bit better on the f/4 IS vs. the f/2.8 IS, in practice, you won't see it much, so don't worry about it from that standpoint.

I'm the proud owner of the 70-200 2,8 IS. I use this lens mainly when shooting basejumping and other extremesports. The focus is incredebly fast, and for soccer the "Panning IS" function should come in handy.
Overall very happy with this lens.

Erlend

The 200 2.8 is an excellent choice.

Since you seem to have great position on the sideline, and you say focal length is not a concern, the 135L would also be a great choice. Sometimes at dusk/later in the day, even 2.8 is marginal. While it may not cover the whole field you'll have very good coverage in your zone.

Just some thoughts.

People bang on endlessly about the IQ differences between the various Canon 70-200mm L series lenses but the reality is that the differences are very small and probably not field relevant. They show up in the lab but people don't often shoot in the lab.

If sports is your only application for the lens then I would go for the 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS simply on cost grounds. IS isn't particularly helpful in sports work as you generally need to use shutter speeds beyond the point where it becomes effective simply to suppress subject motion blur.

You'd sacrifice a great lens used by pros all over the world becauses its not as sharpe as its cousing viewed at 50000% in test conditions?

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5332731
Well, I talked myself out of the 300mm F2.8 L IS, if for no other reason than the fear of walking around with a $4,000 lens on my camera. I decided to go with the 300mm F4L IS instead. I rented the F4L IS version a few weeks ago and was completely satisfied with it.

But, it is becoming obvious that I need a slightly faster lens for soccer at dusk/under lights. I thought about the 70-200mm F2.8L IS but have found many posts stating that the IQ is at the bottom of the 70-200mm family. If I spent $1,700 on that lens I would probably sell my 70-200mm F4L IS, which I am not sure I want to do.

So, I am thinking about the 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS or the 200mm F2.8L. I shoot kids soccer from the sideline so focal length is not a big issue. I figure at 200mm, I will not be zooming out so that is why I thought about the 200mm F2.8L prime. Is the AF fast enough for sports on the 200mm prime? Would I be better off with the 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS or selling my F4L IS and getting the F2.8L IS?
I realize that it is ultimately my decision but I am interested in other thoughts.

Thanks.

For sports shot, you need zoom regardless you want or not, so go for 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f2.8. But 300 f4 ??

As for the f/2.8 vs. f/4 debate, remember - it's only one stop difference. Cranking up the ISO isn't an option? Instead of ISO 100, shoot at ISO 200. Or 400 instead of 200. That's one stop.

I would think the versatility of the zoom would be more practical than the prime only because soccer fields are pretty large... But they're all great lenses that you mentioned.

IS would only be an issue if you're handholding near the limits... A monopod would make them all more-or-less equal.

The 300mm f/2.8L IS is just in another league altogether.

Double Negative wrote in post #5333190
As for the f/2.8 vs. f/4 debate, remember - it's only one stop difference. Cranking up the ISO isn't an option? Instead of ISO 100, shoot at ISO 200. Or 400 instead of 200. That's one stop.

Instead of ISO 3200, shoot at ISO 6400 (if you have a mkIII). Instead of ISO 6400, shoot Nikon. Ooops, small problem here.

I own a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens

I use this lens so often for so many different types of subjects that I would never sell it in order to have a lens that would be better for one type of photography.

I don't own a 70-200mm f/2.8 (series) lens because IMO, the lens is just too heavy for a "carry-everywhere" glass.

However, I have used the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and, although the IS may not be quite up to its non-IS sibling or the 70-200mm f/4L IS cousin in test shooting; I seriously doubt if it would be evident in general day-to-day photography. I consider the IQ from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens just great.

if you absolutely need an f/2.8 aperture - I believe that the 200mm f/2.8L prime might be just the way to go.

How about getting a 135/2 and a 1.4x which you can use on other lenses?

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5332731
I thought about the 70-200mm F2.8L IS but have found many posts stating that the IQ is at the bottom of the 70-200mm family.

While this is probably true, it's a small difference, and they're ALL fantastic. So we're talking a difference between absofricken amazing (70-200 f/4) vs the bottom of the barrel 70-200 2.8 IS, which is 'only' freaking amazing.

you will be impressed with ANY of the 4 variants. NONE give average image quality.

I love my 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM for the sports shooting that I do. I primarily work in Soccer, Gymnastics and Volleyball for sports shoots and I wouldn't leave home without that lens. A monopod takes care of the weight issue for me, but I don't mind the weight anyway. Oh, I do use a Sigma 1.4x with the 70-200mm. Works great!

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5332731
...so focal length is not a big issue...

I find myself going all of the way out to 70 when shooting youth (U10) soccer. I usually try to shoot from the behind the end line and even at 70 have to back up to catch action near the goal.

I would definitely suggest going with a zoom!

20D_Newbie wrote in post #5332731
Well, I talked myself out of the 300mm F2.8 L IS, if for no other reason than the fear of walking around with a $4,000 lens on my camera. I decided to go with the 300mm F4L IS instead. I rented the F4L IS version a few weeks ago and was completely satisfied with it.

I had both the 300 f2.8 IS (simply amazing lens) and the 300 f4 IS (simply lovely lens) and ended up selling off the 300 f2.8 IS. I know, I'm in the massive minority on this one! Believe me the 300 f2.8 IS is unbelievably good, but the 300 f4 IS wasn't all that far off (sharp, crisp, great colors) and so much lighter, cheaper, and sufficient for my U12 and U10 day time soccer. I'm too satisfied with the f4 IS.

Is the AF fast enough for sports on the 200mm prime? Would I be better off with the 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS or selling my F4L IS and getting the F2.8L IS?

None of the 70-200's can touch the 200 II prime in AF speed. And only the new 7-2 f4 IS can rival it in IQ. The 200 L rips in every aspect.

AAA