Canon 70 - 200 f/4 USM for sports and wildlife

[Shuiyin]

Hey all. I was wondering if I could get your expert opinions on a lens I'm thinking of buying. I'm currently looking at getting the Canon 70 - 200mm f/4 USM lens while Canon is having their best in glass sales event. I'll mostly be using the lens for sports photography and occasionally for wildlife photography. Do you think this would be a sufficient lens for either or both of these types of photography?

EDIT: I just realized I posted this in the wrong subforum. Can a mod move this to the correct one? Thanks and my apologies.

 

[ronlane]

The answer is that it depends on the light that you have available for the sports you shoot. If you are shooting in Cowboy Stadium with all the lights set up, most likely you will be fine. If you are shooting football for a small high-school with only a couple of small banks of lights, you will most likely struggle with the f/4.

It is a really good lens and I've owned it and tried to shoot highschool sports with it for about 3 games. Then I put it down for the 70-200mm f/2.8.

 

[zombiesniper]

Agree with above.
Also wildlife really starts at 400mm. Now having said that I have shot Snowy Owls in flight with my 70-200mm F4. It can be done but you'll have to crop more. like below.

Snowy landing by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr

 

[table1349]

The 70-200 f4 is an excellent daytime sports lens. Under the lights the 1 stop difference can be huge depending on the body you are shooting with. The 1 stop difference surprisingly can be a huge difference under the lights. While Cowboy stadium is good it is still lacking in the light department. High school it is seriously lacking as a go to sports lens.

As for wildlife it actually depends on what you call wildlife. For me 400mm is too short for wildlife as the wildlife I like to shoot is the deadly kind even to humans. For birds, and smaller wildlife 2oomm can get the job done, especially if you learn about the animals you want to shoot and have patience. That same advise goes for all forms of animal life from the smallest to the largest/most dangerous.

 

[Shuiyin]

All of the sports type events that I would should would typically be during the daytime hours so I don't think light will be an issue. While I would love to get the f/2.8 lens it is just too far out of my price range. Thanks for the input everyone. =)

 

[Peteraa1]

You're right. It is very clean and weather resistant.
For your budget I would recommend Canon EOS 80D.
I have been using in for over a year for my work and that was an amazing experience. I would even say it is the best camera for portraits nowadays.
Liveview operation is very good, not only for video but for macro or studio work.
The 7 frames per second provides for entry-level sports and wildlife operation as does the wider ISO range (up to 25,600).

 

[sniper x]

I have been shooting both for over 30 years and can say a 200 is far too short for about 75% of both the wildlife and sports you'll want to shoot. However, a 70-200 f2.8, or f4 is GREAT for the second camera you should take whilst shooting both Wildlife, and Sports. WHen I was a field photog for the UNM Lobos, I had 2 bodies, one with a 300 f2.8 L IS with a 1.4x adapter, and one with the 70-200 f4 L. I prefered the f4 L because it was so much sharper than the f2.8 L. Plus it was far lighter. Now for wildlife I prefer to rent a 400 f2.8 or f4 and still take my trusty 70-200 f4 L along on a second body. And of course the 70-200 f4 L is by far my all around all time favorite lens.