200mm for Sports?

[IDLaxStar]

Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?

 

[tirediron]

Really depends on what sport(s). On an APS-C sensor, it might be okay for court-sports, but I think it would too short for most field sports.

 

[sobolik]

200mm is very limiting. A zoom would be much better. The 2.8 is of questionable "need" at the price level. Many sports shots have been taken with "slow" glass quite fine. I Have taken football games at night under the lights quite nicely with a 3.5

 

[IDLaxStar]

Well i don't have much of a choice on more length. I either getting this or a tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. But this canon prime sounds like it has a lot better image quality then the tamron and faster af. I just want to know if i should go with a prime or not.

 

[gsgary]

Yes
one from my old 10D @F2.8

1dmk1 iso1250 @F2.8

 

[prodigy2k7]

I used the 70-200 for the first time during a soccer game and I found it was somewhat limiting. It was okay, but I could have really gotten some excellent shots if I had 300-400 instead of 200 as max focal length. I really want a 100-400 for daylight sports. Or maybe see how the new 2x extender performs.

 

[oldmacman]

Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?

It will be okay, except that you will miss the zoom for framing. I have forced myself, on occasion to use my 300mm prime to shoot football. You'd be surprised how many shots you miss close to the sidelines. I prefer my 70-200 with a 1.4x TC. I picked up the 70-200 4L used for $500. While the 200mm prime will have moments of greater clarity, the flexibility of zoom is more desirable for me.

 

[IDLaxStar]

I was thinking about getting the 70-200 4L but i want the f/2.8 because I shoot high school football a lot and the horrible lights are very hard to work in so I don' think an f stop of 4 would be good enough for me.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Depends on the sports, and how close you can get to the sidelines/court/field etc. My 70-200 isn't the greatest for highschool football, but if you get permission to shoot from the sideline it would be great. You could use the 1.4TC though from the stands but you lose a stop and its hard enough to freeze action under crap highschool field lights. It works great for soccer as well if you can sit on the sideline ( although mine isn't a prime and found myself shooting more in the 70-100 range, so I am sure the 200 would work if you backs up a bit from the sidelines. I found it to be too long for highschool volleyball and shot it mostly at 70mm. I think a prime 50mm would be a better range for that. Of course, this is all highschool stuff, when it comes to the pros, you probably want as long a lens as you can afford unless you are rich and have courtside/field side seats. In which case, you can just buy a whole plethera of lenses.

For things like Racing you would probably want to get a longer lens since it would usually always be in daylight anyway and there are much more safety restrictions.

 

[IDLaxStar]

I will be shooting football from the sidelines. So basically my question is should i get the canon 200 2.8 prime, tamron 70-200 2.8 or canon 70-200 4 non-is? Again I will mainly be shooting high school football from sidelines and high school lacrosse which is in daylight from sidelines.

 

[xsouthpawed]

I was actually considering the 200m 2.8 prime myself.. But IMHO you'll probably find the 70-200m's versatility in zoom much more useful.
I know.. f/4 can be a pain sometimes. I don't know what body you use.. but you can probably boost the ISO up.

Not too sure about the Tamron though.. does anyone have experience with its AF performance? It's going to be something you'll really need when you're shooting sports.

 

[Derrel]

For night time football, I would rather have the Canon 135mm f/2-L lens...the extra aperture speed is really nice at night. Plus 200mm is pretty "tight" when shooting from the sidelines at high school games, where the lighting is really,really poor at most fields.
The zoom really will give a lot more flexibility, but at a lot of fields, even f/2.8 will see your typical shutter speeds dropping very,very slow.

 

[IDLaxStar]

I am about to purchase either a D40 or D50. So Derrel do you recommend i get the 135 f/2 or the tamron 70-200 2.8? Does anyone know how the af is on that tamron, thats all i am worried about with it. I heard it has awesome iq.

 

[Derrel]

The Tamron 70-200 apparently has pretty slow autofocusing...the reviews of it really knock it for slow AF...I have the Canon 135 f/2...it focuses quite rapidly and surely...it's also fairly compact and light for its length and aperture. I don't really "see" the Tamron around where I live, and have not handled it personally.

 

[gsgary]

I used the 70-200 for the first time during a soccer game and I found it was somewhat limiting. It was okay, but I could have really gotten some excellent shots if I had 300-400 instead of 200 as max focal length. I really want a 100-400 for daylight sports. Or maybe see how the new 2x extender performs.

The 100-400 is rubish for shooting sport, slow aperture and slow focus