Thinking about buying a telephoto lens.

For the price of an f/4 IS, you can get the f/4 and a 100/2 or 85/1.8, so you might as well go that route if f/4 works for you outdoors.

bigland wrote in post #8023198
I'm sorry, I really don't think I am going to rethink my strategy based on ONE person's opinion.

no problem - it's your money, spend it wisely!

StageOne wrote in post #7974108
If you really like the 85, but want a little more reach, look at its twin the 100 f2.

I agree with StageOne. If you think the 85mm might be short and the 135mm long, why not the 100mm 2.0?

if you cant get it at 2.8IS you arent going to be able to get it with f/4 or f/4IS.

I thought you wanted to solve that problem, not just "get a new lens"

You can shoot at 2.8 and ISO 1600 and recover 2 stops in raw... personally, i have done this alot and it works great.

IS is not going to help you get a faster shutter speed. if it's dark, it's dark.

If that is the case, just get the 100 f/2. f/2 is not noticeably faster than 2.8 in most situations.

Good luck with your choice.

bigland wrote in post #8023198
I'm sorry, I really don't think I am going to rethink my strategy based on ONE person's opinion.

MikeMcl: I am not going to automatically replace the 70-200 in the fall. I will only consider replacing if I find I need the IS in my regular, daily shooting. I am going to consider augmenting my lens lineup with a 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2. I really don't think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be my answer because I need to set my ISO at 3200 with an aperture of 2.8 to have any chance of freezing the action. I want to get away from shooting at ISO 3200.


Sumodog: Thanks for the advice on shooting the BBall. Which focal length did you find most useful when shooting courtside?

MikeMcL wrote in post #8030141
if you cant get it at 2.8IS you arent going to be able to get it with f/4 or f/4IS.

I thought you wanted to solve that problem, not just "get a new lens"

You can shoot at 2.8 and ISO 1600 and recover 2 stops in raw... personally, i have done this alot and it works great.

IS is not going to help you get a faster shutter speed. if it's dark, it's dark.

If that is the case, just get the 100 f/2. f/2 is not noticeably faster than 2.8 in most situations.

Good luck with your choice.

I know the f/4 isn't going to be much good for my in a gymnasium - and I'm okay with that.

If you read my first post, the problem I wanted to solve was to extend my focal range. So I guess I fail to see why I am just "getting a new lens". As stated in my opening post, I do the majority of my shooting outside in good light. It is only occasionally that I shoot in the dimly lit gymnasium.

If, in the fall, I am not satisfied with my 17-55 IS in the gym, then I will buy the 85 f/1.8. If I do that, I will still have spend substantially less than if I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I have to disagree with you that f/2.0 is not noticeably faster than f/2.8 in most situations. But that argument, I could say that f/2.8 is not noticeably faster than f/4 in most situations - which as my 70-200 f/4 (which I have now btw) clearly shows me in dim situations.

if the f4 works, look at sigma 100-300

Personally, I would save your hard-earned money and pursue purchase of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.

Cyclop wrote in post #8033869
Personally, I would save your hard-earned money and pursue purchase of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.

At some point, I may have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. But right now, that is more $$ than I can afford. I purchased the 70-200 f/4 used, so when I do have the funds for the 2.8 IS, I can sell the f/4 for close to what I paid for it. I now have a 70-200 to use until the day comes that I get a 2.8 IS.

On a side not, I had forgotten how bad camera shake can be until I zoomed the 70-200 into 200mm. The focus point looked like it could on Dancing with the Stars!