advice please

hi, going to buy first L lens.Was going to get 100-400L but the 70-200L either 4 or 2-8 IS keep springing to mind.Want to try my hand at all types of photography but son plays football and like wildlife.The 100-400L would be ideal for the football and wildlife but the 70-200L would be a more practical lens.I could also use a 1.4 con. to give me more reach for football etc.I've a 450d am i right in saying that with the cropped sensor this would increase my focal length past 200mm?Would i be better with the 2.8 or 4.I 've read that the 4 is sharper and has better contrast than 2.8 version?Sorry for rambling to much choice don't want to make a costly mistake.Thanks in advance

There is no costly mistake with the lenses you mentioned. Since you aren't sure what you want you could try renting or buying used.

If you want to buy you may choose to do what I did when I switched to L's (I had non-L's, Sigma's and Tamron's for my 35mm EOS). I first purchased a 50 1.4, which I still use quite a bit.

My next purchase a was a 70-200 f4 non-IS. I liked the idea of this one as a low weight travel lens but I have found I tend to need more reach than it offers so I have used the 1.4 in a pinch but then I want more speed. My suggestion is get the new 70-200 2.8 mkii and don't look back (I'm on a waiting list now).

After the 70-200 I got the 300 f4. Once again, I want more speed so the 2.8 will join my collection as soon as I get the funds.

I also have the 17-55 is which I use as my walk around lens on a crop body. Not an L but useful.

I did look at the 100-400 but I really didn't like how slow it was. If Canon made a 100-400 f4 IS I would be first in line to get one.

Does your son play his games at night under stadium lights or during the day ?
Do you shoot wildlife in low light ? [Early morning & Late afternoon][Small birds or Medium sized birds & mammals]

Regards,

MrMCoupe wrote in post #9503718
There is no costly mistake with the lenses you mentioned. Since you aren't sure what you want you could try renting or buying used.

If you want to buy you may choose to do what I did when I switched to L's (I had non-L's, Sigma's and Tamron's for my 35mm EOS). I first purchased a 50 1.4, which I still use quite a bit.

My next purchase a was a 70-200 f4 non-IS. I liked the idea of this one as a low weight travel lens but I have found I tend to need more reach than it offers so I have used the 1.4 in a pinch but then I want more speed. My suggestion is get the new 70-200 2.8 mkii and don't look back (I'm on a waiting list now).

After the 70-200 I got the 300 f4. Once again, I want more speed so the 2.8 will join my collection as soon as I get the funds.

I also have the 17-55 is which I use as my walk around lens on a crop body. Not an L but useful.

I did look at the 100-400 but I really didn't like how slow it was. If Canon made a 100-400 f4 IS I would be first in line to get one.

How can you honestly suggest the person gets a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM before its even come out to test, even against the current model. Especially when it will cost a LOT more. Thats just irresponsible.

Silverfox1 wrote in post #9503727
Does your son play his games at night under stadium lights or during the day ?
Do you shoot wildlife in low light ? [Early morning & Late afternoon][Small birds or Medium sized birds & mammals]

Regards,

Normally plays during the day occasionaly under floodlights.Stay in semi rual so have deer. badgers,foxes etc.Tried to photograph deer and birds in the garden so far.

jc450d wrote in post #9503683
hi, going to buy first L lens.Was going to get 100-400L but the 70-200L either 4 or 2-8 IS keep springing to mind.Want to try my hand at all types of photography but son plays football and like wildlife.The 100-400L would be ideal for the football and wildlife but the 70-200L would be a more practical lens.I could also use a 1.4 con. to give me more reach for football etc.I've a 450d am i right in saying that with the cropped sensor this would increase my focal length past 200mm?Would i be better with the 2.8 or 4.I 've read that the 4 is sharper and has better contrast than 2.8 version?Sorry for rambling to much choice don't want to make a costly mistake.Thanks in advance

How old is your son? What kind of conditions do you expect to be shooting the football games? (Is it American Football or Soccer? If soccer, will it be indoors or outdoors?)

Up until, your kid is playing college ball, you can pretty much expect to be low in the stands and close enough that a 70-200 will be enough reach. If you feel you need a little more add the 1.4x TC in a pinch and you're good to go. I usually shoot NFL games from the stands with my 70-200 f/4L IS USM and Kenko 1.4x TC and I can tell you that even from the 2nd level in most stadiums (if you are relatively close to the closer rows) you can can even make out facial expressions with this combo, from the field level you will get a bust shots of players on the sidelines and players in the field you will have full body shots with incredible detail.

Will the 100-400 give you more reach? Yes.
Do you need it? Well that depends on what kind of framing you want.

jc450d wrote in post #9503744
Normally plays during the day occasionaly under floodlights.Stay in semi rual so have deer. badgers,foxes etc.Tried to photograph deer and birds in the garden so far.

If you have access to the 55-250 IS i suggest you try this FL range out first.

The 70-200 F4L IS USM + the Kenko Pro300 1.4TC should fulfill your objectives mentioned with very nice IQ.

Regards whatever your decision !

nureality wrote in post #9503778
How old is your son? What kind of conditions do you expect to be shooting the football games? (Is it American Football or Soccer? If soccer, will it be indoors or outdoors?)

Up until, your kid is playing college ball, you can pretty much expect to be low in the stands and close enough that a 70-200 will be enough reach. If you feel you need a little more add the 1.4x TC in a pinch and you're good to go. I usually shoot NFL games from the stands with my 70-200 f/4L IS USM and Kenko 1.4x TC and I can tell you that even from the 2nd level in most stadiums (if you are relatively close to the closer rows) you can can even make out facial expressions with this combo, from the field level you will get a bust shots of players on the sidelines and players in the field you will have full body shots with incredible detail.

Will the 100-400 give you more reach? Yes.
Do you need it? Well that depends on what kind of framing you want.

Son is fourteen and plays semi pro out doors.Some parks have stands others you stand pitchside.Would like full body shoots with clear facial expression and head + shoulders.Weather normally overcast or raining

If money is an object (and when isn't it) have a look at the Tamron 18-270. It's not 'L' quality but it has reasonable reach w/ a 1.6 cropped camera for outdoor events (sports & travel). It would cost you at 1/3 the price of 70-200 f/2.8 and might serve your purpose well.

aperkins wrote in post #9503817
If money is an object (and when isn't it) have a look at the Tamron 18-270. It's not 'L' quality but it has reasonable reach w/ a 1.6 cropped camera for outdoor events (sports & travel). It would cost you at 1/3 the price of 70-200 f/2.8 and might serve your purpose well.

Googled the lens but at f6.3 at 270 i think a faster lens due to light levels would be better.thanks

I found the 70-200 2.8L IS is much more usable for general work than the 100-400 which I don't like. The 70-200 is an absolute world class lens and one of the best you'll ever use.

abigailandsam wrote in post #9503856
I found the 70-200 2.8L IS is much more usable for general work than the 100-400 which I don't like. The 70-200 is an absolute world class lens and one of the best you'll ever use.

do you know if the f4 is better than the 2.8.I read a thread that sayed the f4 had better contrast and was sharper.How sharp would the 2.8 with 1.4 con?

One thing to consider with sports if focusing speed. I found my 70-200f4l focuses dramatically faster than the Canon 100-400L that I rented.

Both are excellent lenses and very very sharp. If your son is going to have night games anytime soon a f2.8 lens would be a better investment.

nureality wrote in post #9503737
How can you honestly suggest the person gets a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM before its even come out to test, even against the current model. Especially when it will cost a LOT more. Thats just irresponsible.

It is not irresponsible when you consider the OP didn't make price a criteria, the history of Canon and preliminary assessments of this new lens. This is MY opinion AND what I am doing. So far, in my almost 50 years, trusting a major corporations upgrade of one of their premier products has worked for me.

BTW, most of these "test" don't mean anything in the real world. I would guess anyone looking to spend thousands on glass is smart enough to go to a store and sample the product before buying (or buy from someone with a decent return policy).