Canon 70-200 f4

BNHPhotography · Aug 3, 2011

Ive been reading a lot of reviews about this lens, I was hoping for the 2.8 for my anniversary/birthday/christmas present, but i'm really doubting its going to happen this year. I would like to try to get into sports photography mostly football, track, volleyball, and basketball and I need an all around good lens. Has anyone used this lens for low light situations? Should I just save money and write santa an early 2012 christmas list? I have a 'nifty fifty', kit lens, and a quantary (sp?) 70-300 f4 I think in my camera bag now. Also, my camera body is a canon xti I read in another forum that with a entry level dslr I would just end up with a lot of blurry images with this lens and the f2.8 is that true?

BNHPhotography · Aug 4, 2011

bump? I respect everyones opinion here a lot and would be very thankful for a comment to the blurry image question. It was only mentioned in one forum none of the reviews I read said anything about it. I have a pretty steady hand when holding the quantary, flash, and grip does anyone think they said this because it doesnt have image stabilization, and most noobs dont have steady hands?

oldmacman · Aug 4, 2011

If you are shooting sports you'll want a higher shutter speed so hand shake should be less of an issue with this lens. I have the 70-200 f4 and it is a great lens on a cropped body. I use it for all outside daytime sports. You'll want a faster lens for inside shooting as you cannot use a flash during sporting events (at least not where I shoot). I use a 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8.

tyler_h · Aug 4, 2011

You already have 70-200 covered at f/4; so you can use that to see if the Canon would do the job. If you are happy with the results (setting wise really) than the 70-200 in f/4 variant would be a great lens to get. If you can't get an acceptable ISO for a lot of the shots then start looking at something faster.

IS will become in part irrelevant as if its primarily for shooting sports you are likely to need a fairly high shutterspeed regardless so if the choice was between the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 I'd lean towards the 2.8 . You will need to consider the extra weight this introduces and how the balance for holding the camera with that lens changes.

BNHPhotography · Aug 4, 2011

Thank you all for the replys! I guess I just needed a little reassurance I wouldnt be wasting my money. Football games were going to be the primary sport I focused on and my high schools football field is lit fairly well, ill give my nifty fifty a try at f4 and see if I get any decent results before the season starts! I have a football playing fiancee that im sure would be more than happy to get out and throw the pig skin for me again haha!

pgriz · Aug 4, 2011

I have the 70-200 f/4 version of the lens with IS, and I've been able to get sharp shots with ridiculously slow shutter speeds at 200mm (1/30 instead of the "rule" of 1/350 [1/200 x 1.6 crop factor]). So IS will help with hand-held shutter speeds. On the other hand, if you're shooting action, your subject will probably blur at 1/30 sec. There is a panning mode (mode 2) on that lens that is supposed to help with that, but since I don't shoot much action I don't have experience with it.

vtf · Aug 4, 2011

I do not have that lens but have done alot of research on it. I started with wanting the 2.8 but found I could get a f4 non IS for around $500 used for an exceptional lens. You'll need flash indoors. And consider there is a size and weight difference between the 2.8 and 4, the 2.8 is much larger and heavier.
I plan to use a mono pod to get my shutter speed lower.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review

RacePhoto · Aug 4, 2011

vtf said:
I do not have that lens but have done alot of research on it. I started with wanting the 2.8 but found I could get a f4 non IS for around $500 used for an exceptional lens. You'll need flash indoors. And consider there is a size and weight difference between the 2.8 and 4, the 2.8 is much larger and heavier.
I plan to use a mono pod to get my shutter speed lower.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review

I won't go with the low light part of the question, the f/2.8 will always be better... but I owned a f/2.8 IS USM and sold it, replaced it with a used f/4 Non-IS! Yes, it's sharp and I'm happy and as others have pointed out, IS does nothing for fast motion or sports. The f/4 is so small, you don't need a monopod, it's light and above all, sharp. 25oz (1.56 lb) for the little one vs 52oz (3.25 lb) for the full version IS USM f/2.8

I shoot mostly outdoors, daylight, so f/4 and ISO 100 is just dandy. How far is it from f/4 to f/2.8 and what do you gain. Ask yourself if it's worth the money for the shutter speed gain?