What lense do you prefer for...

[elmoandzoey]

The proper answer here is a 200 f/2 prime, and a 1.4x TC when you need extra reach. That lens is designed almost entirely for indoor sports.

For shorter, either a 135 f/2 or a 70-200 f/2.8, but if you're sticking with the crop body you're starting at a deficit of about 1 stop of ISO performance to begin with. Using a 70-300 and changing to a FF Body will net you better ISO performance - plus, the 60D is a bit old at this point, so probably more than 1 stop.

You got some money to spare so you can buy this for me? The Canon 200 f2.0 is 5 times the price of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC I am looking at - and even that one I can't really afford at the moment. I'd love a fullframe body but again, it is not in my budget. The 70-300 I have is not compatible with fullframe - in fact, only my 50 f1.8 is so I'd have to spend even more on new lenses. Yeah. Not gonna happen any time soon.

 

[jec6613]

I wasn't aware that any 70-300 was EF-S, I thought they were only EF and fully compatible with full frame. Certainly on the Nikon side, all 70-300 variants are FX/F5/F6 compatible.

And, sadly, I can't afford it either. I rent those lenses when I need them.

 

[havoc315]

You got some money to spare so you can buy this for me? The Canon 200 f2.0 is 5 times the price of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC I am looking at - and even that one I can't really afford at the moment. I'd love a fullframe body but again, it is not in my budget. The 70-300 I have is not compatible with fullframe - in fact, only my 50 f1.8 is so I'd have to spend even more on new lenses. Yeah. Not gonna happen any time soon.

But the 200/2.8 is pretty affordable. If you want less weight than the 70-200/2.8 I would consider it. Primes are usually better than zooms for image quality but in this case, being the 200/2.8 is a very old design, the newest 70-200/2.8 may be slightly better than the 200/2.8. But the prime is still very good, weighs much less, and costs much less.

 

[jec6613]

But the 200/2.8 is pretty affordable. If you want less weight than the 70-200/2.8 I would consider it. Primes are usually better than zooms for image quality but in this case, being the 200/2.8 is a very old design, the newest 70-200/2.8 may be slightly better than the 200/2.8. But the prime is still very good, weighs much less, and costs much less.

Actually, in the Canon realm, the 200 f/2.8 should outperform the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200 mm pretty handily. Unlike in the Nikon camp where there was a big jump from SIC to Nano, Canon's coatings haven't changed significantly in that period of time, and any testing bears that out.

 

[havoc315]

Actually, in the Canon realm, the 200 f/2.8 should outperform the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200 mm pretty handily. Unlike in the Nikon camp where there was a big jump from SIC to Nano, Canon's coatings haven't changed significantly in that period of time, and any testing bears that out.

I'm just going on what I researched:

"The tested lens, although it is an expensive fixed-focal L series device, proved to be no optically better than the zoom 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM II. Quite the opposite in fact – in such an important category as the resolution it fared worse. "

http://www.lenstip.com/327.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_200_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Summary.html

"However, despite its impressive performance it surely has a tough standing in the marketplace because the various Canon EF 70-200mm USM L variants are basically as just as good or even better eaving only the comparatively compact size and low weight as differentiators."

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/580-canon_200_28_ff?start=2

 

[elmoandzoey]

Technically. the 70-300 it works on a crop body but has serious vignetting in the corners that pretty much makes it useless. Also, sadly, in Germany (where I live) renting equipment is usually as expensive as buying used. I wish I could just rent the 70-200 f2.8 für 60 bucks I week like I could in the US but in reality, it's at least 4 times that here for a week

 

[bob100]

I'm torn because right now we can only afford one or the other. Just trying to figure out which one I will go with. I really love the Canon but, goodness, it's expensive. The Tamron is nice and a decent price but it's harder to get the shots closer to me when I'm on the field.

Like you said, the 70-200 is much more versatile

if you're shooting during the day all these lens will work, it's the night and indoor situations where having f2.8 is a desirably feature
And it doesn't have to be Canon, Tamron and Sigma make 70-200 2.8 zooms (but ask in a sports forum, some lens are not so good)
And it doesn't have to be new, you can get good deals on used lens and refurbished, look at the used lens prices in these forums -

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1056
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

(if buying used from a DSLR forum remember the "due diligence" is like ebay - look at feedback, history, seller info, etc.

 

[my3sons77]

if you're shooting during the day all these lens will work, it's the night and indoor situations where having f2.8 is a desirably feature
And it doesn't have to be Canon, Tamron and Sigma make 70-200 2.8 zooms (but ask in a sports forum, some lens are not so good)
And it doesn't have to be new, you can get good deals on used lens and refurbished, look at the used lens prices in these forums -

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1056
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

(if buying used from a DSLR forum remember the "due diligence" is like ebay - look at feedback, history, seller info, etc.

Thank you!