Canon 70-200 2.8L - do I 'need' it for my uses?

[pointandshoot]

OK, here is the good news.Last year i sold a 10 year old Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 in perfect condition for more than I paid. If you buy good glass and take care of it, it will retain most of its value. Cheaper lenses do not based upon my experiences.

Shot the lens today at a dance recital. Terrible, low lights. I needed every bit of the IS, lens speed, and very high ISO to get some keeper shots.

In the end, ask yourself what you plan to shoot. If you are shooting outside, daylight kids soccer, no need for this lens. If you are shooting inside sport or action, go for it. It is a nice lens for many other purposes as well but it has weight. If landscape is the plan, no need. But like I said, good lenses are an investment.

Chuck

 

[PoohJen]

Wow, gorgeous shot, Chuck!

 

[mom2rtk]

Wow, gorgeous shot, Chuck!

Ditto that!

Absolutely STUNNING!

 

[pointandshoot]

Thanks for the kind comments. Very appreciated.

Through I friend I found out who the girl's mother was and got her several of these photos. Both kids are very talented. I am posting the rest in the Canon thread.

Chuck

 

[bob100]

Hi All,
for years I have drooled over the Canon 70-200 L lenses - not that I have any experience with them, but probably because lots of folks rave about them, and because they are way more than this wannabe needs to - or should - spend on a lens.

Been considering a used non-IS version on local craigs list. I don't think I would miss the IS.

I want this lens primarily for sports shots. But my sports shots are mostly outside baseball. So my question is, do I really need a 2.8 for what is primarily daytime, full sun (or overcast) shooting? I use my Canon 40D kit lens and also my Sigma 70-300 (I assume f/4) mostly.

(Fwiw, I've never felt my 40D gets as crisp shots as my Rebel XT does. I plan on doing a side by side comparison next tournament weekend!) Wondering if the Canon lens would produce significantly clearer shots? Is the aperture the main factor for driving the cost? Or are there other qualities (glass?) that factor into this?

Also, has anyone here used an extension with this? Does that reduce the benefit of the 2.8 enough to just say "stick with your Sigma"?

Thank's y'all!

if you primarily use the lens for outside sports then 200mm might be too short. Take a look at the sports section in this Canon forum
http://photography-on-the.net/forum
you will see lots of different lens used - 300mm primes, Canon 100-400, sigma 100-300, etc.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

Good point!

Now I want that lens ChiSoxKeith mentioned!!!

The 400mm lens is a beast. VERY, VERY heavy. No way I could have shot it hand held for more than a shot. Monopod was definitely needed.

pointandshoot - great job on those dance recital pics. Now I have to scour all of my sources and see if I can pick up a freelance gig in the next couple of weeks to pay for a 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[PoohJen]

if you primarily use the lens for outside sports then 200mm might be too short. Take a look at the sports section in this Canon forum
http://photography-on-the.net/forum
you will see lots of different lens used - 300mm primes, Canon 100-400, sigma 100-300, etc.

Thanks for the link - I was in the market for some additional sites!

Yep, I do love a long zoom, although the kit lens (28-135) works fine for pitching pictures (distance-wise). Son is also first base, so can get by with kit for that too, though my 70-300 has been a work horse over the years, taking shots of all the boys on the team!

To be honest, since his long-time, most-awesome team broke up almost two years ago, I haven't had much enthusiasm for shooting baseball. He's played for a few teams since then, but it just wasn't the same (the other was like shooting family). He's just defected to another high-performance team though, so I'm hoping that reignites the photo enthusiasm for me - I think it will!

 

[Master Mason]

I can't answer all your questions as I'm a Nikon shooter but I can tell you this: I just got the Nikon 70-200 VRII. That sucker is HEAVY. You absolutely DO want the IS, it's just as heavy. Lots of glass to make it F/2.8 throughout. I don't shoot sports but I chose the F/2.8 because I wanted the speed and the ability to isolate my subject.

I disagree completly, you don't really need the IS version. If your shooting sports, then then you need to have your shutter speed fast, and at the speed you need to stop the action, you have taken all of the camera shake out of the equation.

As for needing the f/2.8 I use it all the time when shooting sports, it lets me shoot through the backstop and you don't even know its there, it lets me isolate the players, it lets me keep shooting well past when everyone else has put their cameras back in the bag, because I can open it up to keep my shutter speed up.

 

[wenrob]

I disagree completly, you don't really need the IS version. If your shooting sports, then then you need to have your shutter speed fast, and at the speed you need to stop the action, you have taken all of the camera shake out of the equation.

As for needing the f/2.8 I use it all the time when shooting sports, it lets me shoot through the backstop and you don't even know its there, it lets me isolate the players, it lets me keep shooting well past when everyone else has put their cameras back in the bag, because I can open it up to keep my shutter speed up.

Been covered in the thread. I pointed out I didn't shoot sports and that I couldn't answer all questions, just give my opinion.

 

[willibobs]

Hi, I am new to this forum but have the 70-200 F2.8IS and can only sing its praise.

That said 75% of the time the IS is turned OFF!

The reason for this is that if your shooting sports photography and moving in both vertical and horizontal plane IS will not do anything at all for your shots.

If you are panning (motorsport etc..) then you can turn the IS to setting 2 and this will aide you in that it turns off the horizontal gyros but keeps the vertical gyros on so minimizes that plane of movement.

If using for portraits etc... in low light then the IS is an absolute god send.

Also bear in mind that the f2.8 gives you faster focusing and more accurate focusing depending on the focus points/camera used.

Hope that makes sense, it does to me but then I know what I want to say but maybe not how to relay it.