Convince me I don't need to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L

I already own the 70-200 f/4 version. When I shoot my son's indoor soccer games and baseball games that are late afternoon and early evening, I find myself having to shoot as 1600 ISO. Not really happy with the results. I love the f/4 during a sunny day or with a flash. Is the f/2.8 that much better. I'd like to hear from someone who used both. Thanks!

I've never been lucky enough to try out the F4 version. I shoot under lower light conditions and went for the 2.8 version. Very happy with results however that doesnt mean you would be too. The thing is your options are pretty limited to find something faster than 2.8

For outdoors baseball games in the late afternoon and evenings the results would be good. For indoor soccer games I'm not sure. I've shot hockey games but the lighting is different. Its probably still your best option since 85/1.8 is going to be too short for soccer. A 135/2 might be too short as well.

BPL wrote in post #7788698
I already own the 70-200 f/4 version. When I shoot my son's indoor soccer games and baseball games that are late afternoon and early evening, I find myself having to shoot as 1600 ISO. Not really happy with the results. I love the f/4 during a sunny day or with a flash. Is the f/2.8 that much better. I'd like to hear from someone who used both. Thanks!

If this is typical of what you're going to shoot, the 70-200 2.8IS is what you need. Can you afford it? The price may be all you need to convince you that you "don't need it". It's one hell of a lens though, my favorite.

I recently sold my 70-200L f2.8 IS and bought a 135L and 2x Converter (I already had a 1.4x converter. Do I regret it? not a bit. I previously had a 70-200L f4 and a 70-200L f4 IS.

My favourite of them all was the 70-200L f4 IS but I sold that to get the 70-200L f2.8 IS which I personally found too heavy and cumbersome. if you can afford the stop less the f4 IS version is brilliant, but I still prefer my current configuration, see below for results!

Well chuffed with my results!

Nah... get rid of the 30D and buy a 1D mark III. The high ISO performance is much better!

Seriously, from what I've seen from the f/2.8 version it is a nice lens. A little heavy perhaps but often worth it. You could also try a fast prime of course?

cheers

Maybe you could consider a new body that can handle the higher ISO values better

like Bill said .

I haven't used both but I took these in late afternoon with high thin overcast with the 2.8 non IS and Canon 20D hand held. Perhaps the settings will prove helpful.
The first:
Shutter 1/320
Aperture 2.8
Exposure AV
F.L. 200
ISO 400

The second
Shutter 1/1600
Aperture 3.2
Exposure AV
F.L. 200
ISO 400

I find that at ISO 800 the results look fine. I'm sure I would have been happy with the F4. This was my first time shooting with the lens and the only technical misses I had were when the AI servo mode found the wrong subject.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

BPL wrote in post #7788698
I already own the 70-200 f/4 version. When I shoot my son's indoor soccer games and baseball games that are late afternoon and early evening, I find myself having to shoot as 1600 ISO. Not really happy with the results. I love the f/4 during a sunny day or with a flash. Is the f/2.8 that much better. I'd like to hear from someone who used both. Thanks!

If the price of the Canon is putting you off, you might consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 instead. It's an awesome lens, performs well in low light and is comparable to the Canon in terms of image quality. I purchased mine used from this forum, for under $600, and have been very pleased with it.

Why not just add the Canon 200mm f/2.8L II and you should be all covered, and you can still use 1.4x converter with that if needed, the lens for only about $700.

Mufutau

I have had both the 70-200/2.8 and the 200/2.8 and both are fantastic lenses. I would opt for the prime, well because i'm a prime lover and i found myself at the long end of the zoom 99% of the time anyway. The price difference really is a big factor and my 200/2.8 was as sharp, if not sharper than my 70-200. get something in 2.8. hell for indoor soccer you could even do a 135L and a 1.4x teleconverter and be on your merry way. you have all sorts of options.

I don't shoot a lot past my 85mm....so I got the 70-200 f/4 to have incase. I love the lens...it's light and does the trick outdoors.

When I do shoot low light....ie wedding/receptions, I go and rent the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I couldn't justify keeping that lens around. I pay the $35 to rent it over the weekend, and i'm happy.

So, in short, no...I don't think you need it.

you dont need it...you can get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for less and have pretty much the same IQ and focus speed.
Unless you look at images at 200% to find every little difference.

Of the limited amount of gear I own I am the most impressed with the 70-200 2.8. Yes it's beast but wow it's unreal IQ is why I use it so much. Worth the upgrade I think.

Dottie wrote in post #7788920
If this is typical of what you're going to shoot, the 70-200 2.8IS is what you need. Can you afford it? The price may be all you need to convince you that you "don't need it". It's one hell of a lens though, my favorite.

I won't be able to afford the IS. Theses conditions are typical of what I shoot in.