70-200l is it enough

hey guys im really wanting to invest in some quality glass(as you can see ive been neglecting the issue of quality haha). I just walk around and shoot but would need the telephoto for sports. I shoot a lot of college sports for the paper and i am honestly wondering if the 200mm would be adequate.

For basketball i can get right under the net so thats no issue. Baseball i can get in the dugouts and around that area. For lacrosse the closest i can get it right outside the fence.

Do you guys think it has been adequate for sports?

85 1.8 for. Basketball and 300 l or sigma 100-300 f4 for baseball persoally I went for sigma a little more lattitude and just as or maybe a little sharper than the canon good luck

At newspaper resolution about any lens resolves well enough.

If I had to get down to one lens to shoot sports the 70-200 2.8 would be the easy choice.

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and 100-400 L.

I shoot a lot of soccer, have shot lacrosse, crew and some basketball.

I agree with above regarding 85 for basketball. That would be about right, but still a bit long for a crop body.

I primarily choose the 70-200 for night sports under the lights and overcast days. For soccer or lacrosse, you will be somewhat limited at 200mm, but it's not so bad with a crop body. If you are shooting at 15 MP or higher, you have plenty of pixels for cropping.

The big issue here is if you are shooting at night, you MUST have f2.8 or better. Nothing else will do.

If your budget doesn't stretch to two choices like this, then go for the 70-200 f2.8 and save up for the 1.4x or 2x converter. Slap on the converter on sunny days and you'll be in good shape.

I shoot a lot of lacrosse, and a 70-200 w/o a TC is not really enough. I shot a lot w/ a 70-200 f/4L non-IS and a Kenko 1.4x TC and found this to be a great combination. Went w/ a 70-200 f/2.8L and a Canon 2x TC just for that extra reach. And for the late games (6:00 PM start), I can either go w/ the 1.4x TC and get 280mm @ f/4 or pull the TC altogether and work on closer shots.

thanks for all the input. So looks like the general opinion is to stay clear of the f/4 because if coupled with a TC ill be lacking adequate light (especially on an overcast day)?

the 2.8 is far out of budget so i guess ill have to do a few months of saving up for one of those bad boys.

More input would be great though, i love learning stuff from you guys

You might want to consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It's a terrific lens for sports. I used to have one - sold it because I didn't like the weight, but the IQ and focusing were tremendous. You can find them used for around $600. It could be a solution.

ceegee wrote in post #9985381
You might want to consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It's a terrific lens for sports. I used to have one - sold it because I didn't like the weight, but the IQ and focusing were tremendous. You can find them used for around $600. It could be a solution.

how would you say it competed with image quality and focus speed with the canon?

For sports and photojournalism, a 70-200 lens is very nice. Some sports, you may need longer.

ceegee wrote in post #9985381
You might want to consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It's a terrific lens for sports. I used to have one - sold it because I didn't like the weight, but the IQ and focusing were tremendous. You can find them used for around $600. It could be a solution.

Thats an excellent lens. I would recommend making sure you get the HSM II version as that has improved optics over the previous 3 versions.

hm will really have to consider that one.

jcarp618 wrote in post #9988810
how would you say it competed with image quality and focus speed with the canon?

Focusing speed is pretty much the same as the Canon; Sigma's HSM is awesome, lightning fast. As for image quality, it'd be very hard to distinguish between the two. If you want f/2.8, the Sigma is great value. I sold mine primarily because of the weight and lack of IS (I have arthritis in my wrist and arm); the images it produced were great.

ceegee wrote in post #9990514
Focusing speed is pretty much the same as the Canon; Sigma's HSM is awesome, lightning fast. As for image quality, it'd be very hard to distinguish between the two. If you want f/2.8, the Sigma is great value. I sold mine primarily because of the weight and lack of IS (I have arthritis in my wrist and arm); the images it produced were great.

which version did you have? (a link would be lovely lol)