Better Lens for Wildlife/Sports

[Buszaj]

Hi, which lens would be better for wildlife and sports; (mainly soccer), photography? The Canon[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,geneva,helvetica] EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the Canon EF 100-400m f/4.5-5.6L IS USM?

Thanks
[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[firemedic0135]

you can ditch the "IS" on the 70-200mm if you are shooting sports as you are going to have a shutter speed fast enough to counter any shake with 200mm of zoom.

As far as the 2 choices I would consider the 70-200mm and get a 1.5xTC to get a little more reach for the wildlife shots and still have a faster lens than the 100-400mm.

 

[usayit]

Go for the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L... although not as fast as the 70-200mm it is more popular for wildlife than the 70-200mm. On a soccer field, the 200mm focal length is going to be short. (I am assuming outdoor soccer) The 100-400mm will still outshine the 70-200mm + 1.4x converter (there is no such thing as a 1.5x by Canon). If you can pull off a 1d-markII, which is dropping in price due to the 1d-MarkIII, the 1.4x converter will also work with the 100-400mm zoom. The 1dmarkII is geared towards what you are shooting.

Another lens (that is cheaper) is the Sigma 170-500mm zoom. It is known to perform admirably and hold its own.

If it were up to me.. I'd go for the 300mm f2.8L or f4L IS. Either will out perform all of the above easily.

Then there is the 400mm L and 600mm L... but those a dreams...

 

[soylentgreen]

If just wildlife, either choice would be good. Since you also want the sport aspect, I would reccommend the f/2.8. I do not know if you have enough reach though to cover that much of pitch. I do the majoriity of my wildlife stuff with the 70-200 and 300 f/4 L IS. With the 1.4x TC I use that more often with the 70-200 rather than than the 300. More for the zoom aspect rather than reach. Never got use tot he push-pull zoom of the 100-400. Like the reach on it, but might be too slow for action shots. I kinda like the internal focus of the 70-200.

 

[shorty6049]

well... from what i've heard, the 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty much the best lens you could ever have... (that may be exaggerated) but everyone is always talking about how great that lens is, and when i have enough money, i plan on purchasing the sigma or sony version of it for my camera. i think you're going to that lens more useful in sports as well as nature becasue in low light, its really going to help having that fast glass.

 

[usayit]

More accurately.. not the best Canon lens but one of the best zooms. There are better lenses and each lens has advantages versus disadvantages. The push pull design of the 100-400mm does take getting used to and is very much a personal preference. Never know if you don't try it... I personally found it faster to go from the shortest focal length to the longest focal length than twisting.

In daylight outdoors, at a polo match. My cousin had my 70-200 f2.8L IS on a film camera and I had my 100-400mm on my digital. By far, the 200mm focal length was short. For most outdoor lighted events, the 400mm focal length will be more than welcome. (and when I say lighted... I'm not saying blinding bright light.. just good quality light) If I had to choose between bumping up to ISO400 and getting an up close shot versus shooting ISO100 and a wide shot, guess which I would choose.... Too many people are sold on the myth that a zoom that doesn't have a max aperture of f/2.8 is useless.

Now if your are talking indoors sports (smaller arenas), night time events, weddings and such.. 70-200mm f2.8 all the way. Actually... I'd probably go with a couple bodies, one with a medium zoom and another with a long prime.

 

[sabbath999]

If you are shooting sports, it must be fast fast fast. Go for the 2.8, and if you need a teleconverter for wildlife, then those are available (and the lens won't be any slower than if you had bought the other one).