Questions regarding 70-200L or 100-400L

I'm thinking about swapping out my 55-250 with a used 70-200 L or keeping my 55-250 and picking up a 100-400L used. I'm leaning towards the 100-400 as I love the 55-250 and think the extra distance would do a lot. However, my question lies with IS - If I'm shooting sports I usually do it in Tv mode at 1/1000 so I don't think IS would matter in that situation. At what shutter speed would I start seeing the lack of IS? Is it worth it to to spend the extra money on it? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.

I dont think canon ever made a 100-400 L non IS. Be careful with ebay...

If you meant 70-200 non IS, then that seems about right for the f/4 version.

For sports, the 100-400 is no good without really good lighting. The 70-200 would be a bit better, though you lose reach.

IS doesnt matter in sports, its only for stills (non action) shots, and youll need it at about 1/focal length or less depending on your handholding abilities. My mom can amazingly hand hold a 1 second exposure lol. she is also an oral surgeon though.

hope that helps im sure other people can explain all this better

Thats great info, thanks. Is it worth returning my new 55-250 for the 70-200? Is the IQ that much better?

Stabilization is always useful, especially on a long lens. You might not always be able to shoot at 1/1000. I'd keep the 55-250 and look for something longer. The 100-400 is a good choice, as is the Sigma 150-500.

I know it might be more than your current budget, but for consideration you might want to have a look at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226

with a 2*TC fitted it gets very close ot the 100-400mm level in image quality. Its a more expensive approach to the 400mm (remember there is also the 400mm f5.6 L lens) but it is an optino if you also like using a regular 70-200mm type range lens.

Mike787 wrote in post #10571116
However, my question lies with IS - If I'm shooting sports I usually do it in Tv mode at 1/1000 so I don't think IS would matter in that situation. At what shutter speed would I start seeing the lack of IS? Is it worth it to to spend the extra money on it? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.

You might want to vary a bit how you are shooting sports. Shooting everything at Tv mode 1/1000 might give you a series of photos with a very similar feel to them. Try varying both the shutter speed and the aperature to change the depth of field and the way movement is portrayed in your images.

You may want to consider a prime if you have a specialized need for a focal length.

The 70-200 mkII is out of my price range. I just looked at the sigma 150-500 but I only saw 5.6 versions. Is there a lens with that reach that can get to 2.8? What would be the best / fastest sports lens between the ranges of 70mm to 500mm?

Mike787 wrote in post #10571392
The 70-200 mkII is out of my price range. I just looked at the sigma 150-500 but I only saw 5.6 versions. Is there a lens with that reach that can get to 2.8? What would be the best / fastest sports lens between the ranges of 70mm to 500mm?

The best sports lenses in that range are the 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and 500 f/4. they also cost like 5K plus each.

and a 500 2.8 would likely weigh about as much as a human and cost as much as a house.

Your options for a sports tele are the canon 100-400, 400 5.6, or 300 f/4 or 70-200 with teleconverter. i would go with the 100-400. on a crop youll get a nice 35mm equivalent. Just dont expect to shoot at night / low light. to be honest it really depends what sports you shoot and if its indoors or outdoors. can you share that with us?

And welcome to one of the most expensive niches in photography.

It will be primarily used for Lacrosse and Football. I have family that play at the HS level and luckily the games are in the late afternoon / evening with good light or at night under the lights (which might be a problem). I also have some friends who play Lacrosse at the professional level.

Mike787 wrote in post #10571392
The 70-200 mkII is out of my price range. I just looked at the sigma 150-500 but I only saw 5.6 versions. Is there a lens with that reach that can get to 2.8? What would be the best / fastest sports lens between the ranges of 70mm to 500mm?

The 150-500 is actually f/6.3 @ 500mm.

The longest f/2.8 prime is the 400mm f/2.8. You can price it at B&H.

Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8, but it's about $25,000. The Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS is quite a bit cheaper.

What's your budget?

power_play21 wrote in post #10571513
a 500 2.8 would likely weigh about as much as a human and cost as much as a house.

And welcome to one of the most expensive niches in photography.

Actually, it's quite a bit cheaper than a house! About the price of a nicely equipped Toyota Camry

(talking about the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8)

egordon99 wrote in post #10571641
Actually, it's quite a bit cheaper than a house! About the price of a nicely equipped Toyota Camry

(talking about the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8)

well thats a sigma, and its a zoom. a 500 2.8 prime from canon would likely be as much as a house.

btw, 25K can buy a pretty decent house here in MI lol

Mike787 wrote in post #10571614
It will be primarily used for Lacrosse and Football. I have family that play at the HS level and luckily the games are in the late afternoon / evening with good light or at night under the lights (which might be a problem). I also have some friends who play Lacrosse at the professional level.

Late afternoon with good light might be possible if its a clear summer day. Anything else and youre gonna struggle with an xs and 100-400. Evening and night games are gonna be pretty bad, especially without high ISO capabilities from say, a 7D or even 40/50D, or 1D3.

Youre gonna be camera limited shooting in those conditions pretty much independent of what lens you get (that are in your price range).

I would not get anything slower then f/4, preferably 2.8. That is all I can recommend in your situation. "Field - long range - less then ideal light - sports" is one demanding combo if you qant decent quality.

power_play21 wrote in post #10571871
btw, 25K can buy a pretty decent house here in MI lol

I need to move to MI! Then I'd be able to afford the 200-500!

egordon99 wrote in post #10571630
Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8, but it's about $25,000. The Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS is quite a bit cheaper.

What's your budget?

Yes, very much a case of "Be careful what you wish for." The cost is one thing, but the 15.7kg (34.5lb) weight might give you second thoughts too. How's your tripod?