Decisions, decisions...

Ok, here is my dilema. I am selling my 70-200 f4(great lens) to get something faster. Reason for upgrade is both children getting into hockey and dancing. Will be shooting hockey and dance performaces indoors. Own 30D and 5d2, 24-105L and sigma 50 1.4 and Kenko 1.4 extender already. Thinking of 70-200 2.8 IS or 135L mostly using them wide open.Many say the 70-200 IS wide open is soft therefore leaning to 135L cause everyons says its very sharp wide open. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks

Only you know your shooting style and where you get to stand. Do you need a zoom or not?

I think anyone would welcome the versaltility of a zoom. I know I do enjoy the 70-200mm range on both the crop and fullframe, its definitley a bonus. I guess the question I am really asking is if the 70-200 2.8L IS is just as sharp wide open as the f4 version is at its widest. I am happy with the 70-200f4 open wide. I need an extra stop or two but I don't really want to spend 2 grand if its not the same quality wide open as its f4 sibling. From what I've read, its a toss up. I just don't want to buy the lens and be unhappy at 2.8 I guess. Thats why I may sacrifice the flexibility for the prime. I would like to try one first but I don't have that opportunity.

I sold my 70-200mm f/4 non IS and bought the f/2.8 IS and that was the best move I have made as far as lenses go. I don't shoot much sports as I now live in Virginia and do miss going to my Redwing games back home in Michigan.

You can't go wrong with this lens..

carloman wrote in post #8633110
Many say the 70-200 IS wide open is soft therefore leaning to 135L cause everyons says its very sharp wide open. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks

The one thing that i have learnt & know to be true is to not trust what people say about lenses on the net. Personally i dont like the 70-200 as i use primes but that is still a magnificent lens that is well capable of far more greatness than probably 95% of people that use/comment on it.

Be your own judge is really what im saying.

Go 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I just returned my f/4 and upgraded to the 2.8 and wow...what a difference.

As far as the f/2.8 version being soft wide open...yes, it's not as sharp as it is stopped down to f/4, but it's still VERY sharp compared to most lenses. The only lens you'd see a huge difference on is something like a 135L.

The real question is...do you want to be able to zoom in and frame the shot yourself or hope the wide shot is sharp enough so you can crop your way in? Both methods can yield great results if done correctly. So ask yourself, which method is right for you?

Personally, I LOVE my 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It's my everyday walk around lens, and it's great for what I shoot.

The 70-200 2.8 IS is an awesome lens and it is fast and very sharp. The prints made from images taken with this lens are gorgeous. I have lots hanging on my walls!

Thanks for push, I'm gonna take the plunge and go for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Atta boy

I used zooms and found 2.8 too restrictive at times for indoor activities. I opted for fast primes. I would suggest the 85 1.8 and 135L. Zooms are nice to have, but you can only go so fast with them. Even bumping up ISO doesn't always produce good results in low light at 2.8 lens. I know primes lack the versility of zooms, but when you need speed in a lens, they are great to have.

Why not consider the 200mm 2.8 L? Sharp wide open, plus its a very light & inexpensive lens compared to the heavier and more expensive 70-200mm 2.8 L.

the 85 and 135L are a great, but if you're doing any kind of sports or action that you need to continuously follow, you're gonna want a zoom. Especially with high action stuff, you don't have time to be switch lenses on and off. From what I've heard and noticed myself, the only sports/action shooters who use primes are those who use the huge white lenses (300, 400, 500, 600, etc). Aside from that, most use zooms like the 100-400, 28-300, or 70-200 with extenders if they need. If you need faster than 2.8 you're gonna need to position yourself better/closer and get the 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8. Just my 2 cents.

nightcat wrote in post #8634380
Why not consider the 200mm 2.8 L? Sharp wide open, plus its a very light & inexpensive lens compared to the heavier and more expensive 70-200mm 2.8 L.

the 200 2.8 is a good option too, and like he said, rather inexpensive for L glass ($700ish) if you're on a budget...but it's still the same aperture as the 70-200 f/2.8. Yes, double the price, but you're got your bases covered 70-200 at 2.8. If you need faster, gauge the distance using your 70-200 and get appropriate primes for that focal length.

The only down side to primes is no IS. If you want to be able to hand-hold or do panning shots, the 70-200 IS has IS and the IS2 mode for panning.