Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

[SallyBaldwin]

I am reading everywhere that the 70-200 f/2.8 is the lens that I need for action shots. I am purchasing a 7D with little knowledge, but, with the understanding that I will have a lot to learn.
Could you please let me know which of these lenses I should be using?

 

[Overread]

Define "action shots" - you've got to give a clearer idea of what kind of action - sports, wildlife, dance, kids, cars etc.... Furthermore an idea of what kind of budget you have a total to work with would help a lot.

 

[xyphoto]

Could you please let me know which of these lenses I should be using?

It really depends on how much you have to spend. If $2100 is not an issue, get the 70-200mm is II.

 

[SallyBaldwin]

I am wanting to photograph dog racing. Most Do not understand the speed they are running at. On average it takes the dogs 3.8 seconds to run 120 feet.
As for budget, the less the better, only because this is merely for myself. But, if I can't get the a good picture with the cheaper one then I'm wasting my time, as this is the only reason in getting the camera.

 

[SallyBaldwin]

These are the types of photos I'm looking to capture. I borrowed these images from Touch n Go Flyball's website.

 

[Overread]

We have a general policy on the forums not allowing users to embed/attach photos which they do not own/have distribution rights to. You can, however, make direct links to photos on their original hosted website. So I must ask that you edit your post to reflect this


As for the type of photography both the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses you list can do this kind of work; that said I would encourage the newer of the two over the older if you can afford it without crippling your budget. The newer lens has faster AF and an improved optical formula which results in a sharper shot, especially at the longer end and at the f2.8 aperture. This leads to improved results in sharpness and general clarity with the lens and is, in my view, worth paying the extra for it you can afford it.

You might also want to contact the user Gsgary since he does a lot of this kind of photography and could give you some advaice in regard to shooting it (last I recall he uses a 300mm f2.8 IS L lens to shoot much of this kind of photography, as well as some other lenses).

 

[Superdaantje]

I am reading everywhere that the 70-200 f/2.8 is the lens that I need for action shots. I am purchasing a 7D with little knowledge, but, with the understanding that I will have a lot to learn.
Could you please let me know which of these lenses I should be using?

Think its better to learn the basics and the gear you own now. When you know this well enough you can choose better what you miss ;-)
I use the 70-200 II and it is a great lens. Good lenses are nice but knowing how to use them properly is nicer ;-)

Buying a new lens will not give you better results

 

[Overread]

I am reading everywhere that the 70-200 f/2.8 is the lens that I need for action shots. I am purchasing a 7D with little knowledge, but, with the understanding that I will have a lot to learn.
Could you please let me know which of these lenses I should be using?

Think its better to learn the basics and the gear you own now. When you know this well enough you can choose better what you miss ;-)
I use the 70-200 II and it is a great lens. Good lenses are nice but knowing how to use them properly is nicer ;-)

Buying a new lens will not give you better results

Certainly new equipment won't make a person a "better photographer" and learning how to correctly shoot different events and situations is key to any advance in the field. That said I always think that, where funding allows, its better to have equipment to grow into rather than equipment that you grow out of.

Furthermore sometimes its very hard or impossible to shoot certain things "correctly" unless you already have a certain level of equipment to shoot them with. Trying to shoot in challenging conditions with sub-par equipment can be very difficult and often result in more failure than success even when the correct methods are being used.

 

[TheBiles]

If you can't afford the 70-200 II, the non-IS version will be fine for what you want to do. IS will not help you with action shots, so don't feel like you have to get the newer lens. Personally, I think the 70-200 II is Canon's best lens, and I love mine to death.

 

[SallyBaldwin]

Thank you everyone for the posts. Also, sorry for posting the pics, I hope I removed them as I don't see them. Please let me know if they are still up. Thanks again 😀

 

[CanonJim]

Actually, for outside/daylight shots in decent light, the OP may not even need the f/2.8 version...The f/4 USM version of the 70-200 can be had for around $700, and as noted, IS wouldn't really help that much with a moving target. The f/4 is also much lighter, which makes hand-held shots a bit less trying. If a large majority of the use will be outside, with moving targets, this is something to consider.

 

[Overread]

The 70-200mm f4 is a very good lens (before the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII came out it was the best optically speaking - yes the f4 beat the f2.8 - just). It can certainly work well, but it needs the light. Outside you'll be ok most of the time, but indoors you'll really suffer both on auto focus (it needs wide apertures to be able to get enough light for the AF sensors) and on shutter speeds.

If you're going to shoot this kind of photography you want that wider aperture if you can afford it. Some might even make a case for primes such as the 200mm f2, 135mm f2 as well.