Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS or....?

Hey guys, well I have really been interested in the 70-200mm for a while time. But I am starting to get some questions.. To help you out on your answers, I like to shoot wildlife, sports, motorsports, etc.. Here are my questions:

1) For what I want to shoot, will the 200mm be long enough?

2) I have the 55-250mm now, would I get any benefit (besides sharpness and 2.8) from the 70-200mm?

Just let me know because if the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS is worth it, I want to order it

Thanks everyone,
Cole_S

I mainly shoot sports and have been finding that 200mm is not enough reach. I'm currently shopping for a 100-400mm to compliment my 70-200.

< 300mm is not enough, imho.

Is your 250 long enough ?

I really don't think so.. I find myself not even being able to reach across the hockey rink. Only problem is that I don't want to spend 7 grand on the 400 f/2.8. You know?

Not to sound harsh but if you can't afford a lens for the type of shooting you want to do, find something else to shoot.

Maybe the 70-200 with an extender or the 300/f4 IS.

Why are you even thinking 70-200 if your current lenses are too short.

Cole_Schmitt wrote in post #7780588
Hey guys, well I have really been interested in the 70-200mm for a while time. But I am starting to get some questions.. To help you out on your answers, I like to shoot wildlife, sports, motorsports, etc.. Here are my questions:

1) For what I want to shoot, will the 200mm be long enough?

2) I have the 55-250mm now, would I get any benefit (besides sharpness and 2.8) from the 70-200mm?

Just let me know because if the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS is worth it, I want to order it

Thanks everyone,
Cole_S

I shoot motorsports and I love the 70=200 2.8 and I use IS. I think the lens is long enough for many shots outdoors.

So here are the questions you have to answer for yourself. Are the lenses you are using now working for you? If so don't buy a redundant lens.

The second question is if they are not working for you, what problems do you have and will the new lens help? 2.8 buys you better focus accuracy. Being 2.8 activates the extra focus sensor making it more sensitive in low light. Do you find that you get a lot of oof shots, then the 2.8 might help with oof especially in low light.

Do you have problems with your subjects suffering from motion blur. The 2.8 will help with that as well but so will increasing your ISO. If you have no problems with motion blurr then 2.8 will not do so much in this area but if you shoot stadiums, even with 2.8, I shoot at 800 ISO to help prevent motion blur. I could not use the lenses you have now, the extra stop would push me to uses ISOs that with my current camera produce too much noise.

One of your concerns is reach. Even using a crop sensor the reach of the 70-200 is too short when I shoot stadiums when sitting in the stands.. Even 300 is too short. If you have a press pass then the 70-200 would work great, but even the 400 2.8 is too short in a few cases in the stands but I use this lens pretty much exclusively when shooting from the stands.

The 100-400 is too slow of a lens for what I need to shoot but if I shot only outdoors, this lens might be a good one for me, but even outdoors, I like the 2.8 for dof control.

When purchasing a new lens, I buy the lens according to future needs. The future includes a FF camera at some point, every lens I have will fit a FF so I don't have to bring a second crop sensor along after I get one.

All things to think about. But if you get good results with what you have, stick with it and don't purchase another lens unless you have a specific need for it.

I would actually like to just sell the 55-250mm because I have the 55mm with the 17-55. I would like the 70-200mm because it is just an amazing lens for the price/reach/etc. But I am second guessing on whether it will be long enough. And yes, I will be moving to the 5d2 by the end of the year so I told myself the 17-55mm is the only lens I am buying that is for crop..

Cole_Schmitt wrote in post #7790955
I would actually like to just sell the 55-250mm because I have the 55mm with the 17-55. I would like the 70-200mm because it is just an amazing lens for the price/reach/etc. But I am second guessing on whether it will be long enough. And yes, I will be moving to the 5d2 by the end of the year so I told myself the 17-55mm is the only lens I am buying that is for crop..

The the question is.. on your 55-250 are you at the 250mm all the time? Or at the 200?

Because if you are use to this lens, it is basicly a 100-500mm for the field of view.

If you are considering replacing your camera to a FF then you would want a 100-400 on your FF.

Here is another option since you have almost nothing invested in lenses. If you are considering getting a FF, get a Nikon FF and a 200-400 to cover the distance, it is a superior lens to the 100-400 canon.

While the 70-200 is great for your crop sensor, it is going to be short on a FF unless you can get close. It does really depend on what you shoot.

Quite honestly.. the two lenses each have their own specialty.
My 100-400 is always on a camera during the day... Airshows, Car shows, bike races..
My 70-20 2.8 IS is my nighttime lens. Indoor Soccer, Roller hockey, Basketball, softball.

For wildlife; if if's not in a cage, 200mm is NOT enough. you could go with a 1.4X to get to 300 mm F4 with IS..

If your focus is daytime activities; I'd recommend the 100-400.

Good luck making a decision!
-TD

Thanks alot guys, I have been considering the 300 f/4 + a TC and I think that it might just do the trick for me..

You say you're going to move to the 5D2 by the end of year..

Do you understand that if that is going to replace your 400D xti, you will have to upgrade your 17-55 to the 24-70L?

It really depends on what / how / when you shoot. I would say that a 'perfect copy' 100-400L on 5D2 (color noise on ISO 6400 on 5D2 is similar to ISO1600 on xti at 100% crop ie 21mp vs 10mp) will be very good.

If you're buying for the 400D xti now, the 100-400L (or 300 + 1.4TC) will get you more reach than FF cameras, so you might miss the reach once you get the 5D2.

How about not selling the 55-250, and getting the 300 + 1.4x TC? If you're going to sell the 55-250, do get the 100-400L cos you really might miss the range between 55 and 300.

There's a bunch of I don't understand here...just asking for clarification...

Where does OP shoot from...can OP move closer to subjects...?
I shot from sidelines for years (for among many news outlets, coincidentally including the D/C and T/U in Rochester) and never needed more than 300mm on a 35mm camera...and 55-250 = 88 - 400 FoV not 100 to 500...maybe that's just a typo, but 400 from the sidelines ought to be fine, esp. with today's noise free ISOs that can take enlargement...
and....
How does going from F5.6 @ 250mm to F2.8@ 200mm going to improve OOF shots when that reduces the DoF?
...unless we're talking about OOF due to poor focusing and that's a lot to do with user error as much as technology...

Will the 300/F4 + TC work? I thought that there was an F-stop limit for AF to operate...

kitacanon wrote in post #7794806
How does going from F5.6 @ 250mm to F2.8@ 200mm going to improve OOF shots when that reduces the DoF?
...unless we're talking about OOF due to poor focusing and that's a lot to do with user error as much as technology...

Will the 300/F4 + TC work? I thought that there was an F-stop limit for AF to operate...

I moved from constantly borrowing my friend's 55-250IS to my 70-200 2.8IS and the % of OOF photos just dropped instantly. It's the 2.8 aperture (coupled with fast USM for AI servo in-camera) that really helps autofocus in action photography.

The 300 + 1.4x TC will work on any recent Canon body. Consumer bodies have a ƒ/5.6 limitation, and 300 ƒ/4 + 1.4xTC is ƒ/5.6 (:

Headshotzx wrote in post #7794784
You say you're going to move to the 5D2 by the end of year..

Do you understand that if that is going to replace your 400D xti, you will have to upgrade your 17-55 to the 24-70L?

It really depends on what / how / when you shoot. I would say that a 'perfect copy' 100-400L on 5D2 (color noise on ISO 6400 on 5D2 is similar to ISO1600 on xti at 100% crop ie 21mp vs 10mp) will be very good.

If you're buying for the 400D xti now, the 100-400L (or 300 + 1.4TC) will get you more reach than FF cameras, so you might miss the reach once you get the 5D2.

How about not selling the 55-250, and getting the 300 + 1.4x TC? If you're going to sell the 55-250, do get the 100-400L cos you really might miss the range between 55 and 300.

kitacanon wrote in post #7794806
There's a bunch of I don't understand here...just asking for clarification...

Where does OP shoot from...can OP move closer to subjects...?
I shot from sidelines for years (for among many news outlets, coincidentally including the D/C and T/U in Rochester) and never needed more than 300mm on a 35mm camera...and 55-250 = 88 - 400 FoV not 100 to 500...maybe that's just a typo, but 400 from the sidelines ought to be fine, esp. with today's noise free ISOs that can take enlargement...
and....
How does going from F5.6 @ 250mm to F2.8@ 200mm going to improve OOF shots when that reduces the DoF?
...unless we're talking about OOF due to poor focusing and that's a lot to do with user error as much as technology...

Will the 300/F4 + TC work? I thought that there was an F-stop limit for AF to operate...

I know exactly what you guys are saying and that is why my decision is the 300mm.. I think that it will give me the perfect reach for sports and the 1.4 TC will give me the perfect reach for wildlife. I shoot from the sidelines or behind the glass so I only need something to reach across/down the field/ice. I also shoot golf as another main so the 300mm + 1.4 will be perfect for that also. I probably will not shoot sports with the 5d2 but instead with my XTi so I'm not too worried about losing reach..

Also to the comment about me having to sell the 17-55mm.... How dare you No I am probably going to buy the 5d2 + 24-105mm combo unless I buy from here. If I buy from here, then I will have to make the decision to sell the 17-55mm or not. It will become more important when the time comes..

Headshotzx wrote in post #7794893
I moved from constantly borrowing my friend's 55-250IS to my 70-200 2.8IS and the % of OOF photos just dropped instantly. It's the 2.8 aperture (coupled with fast USM for AI servo in-camera) that really helps autofocus in action photography.

The 300 + 1.4x TC will work on any recent Canon body. Consumer bodies have a ƒ/5.6 limitation, and 300 ƒ/4 + 1.4xTC is ƒ/5.6 (:

That's great...Does the 70-210/3.5-4.5 have the same usm...I'm getting one next week...