lens advice: 70-200mm L f/4 or 70-300mm IS?

JMS803 · Mar 28, 2009

I've finally decided on the camera I want to get, the rebel xs, but the lens is a very difficult decision. I think i'm going to start with the 18-55 kit lens, and a 50 1.8. But the telephoto lens is really hard to decide. I can get the 70-200mm L f/4 (Non-IS) for roughly the same price as the canon 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 lens. I would mainly be using the lens for sports games, races, some wildlife etc. (non-professional haha) The L lens is nice because of its image quality and reputation for being a fantastic lens, but the 70-300 has IS and farther reach...Thanks for the help guys.

Katier · Mar 28, 2009

Reach is a tricky one but for sports high shutter speed is allways handy.

As you are likely to either be tripod mounted or hand holding but panning or quickly taking shots in the action I don't think missing IS would matter.

I'd go for the F4 therefore, the better image quality and ability to take faster shutter speeds at all focal lenghts would sell it for me.

JMS803 · Mar 28, 2009

thanks for the advice katier. At this point i'm leaning towards the 70-200. Any additional opinions?

Buszaj · Mar 28, 2009

Definitely go for the 70-200, I use this lens for sports with my Rebel and it's fantastic. With sharp shots, you can crop it a bit to get a bit of extra "reach" if needed. Another option is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, though it is a bit more expensive, but not that much.

JE Kay · Mar 28, 2009

I used the 70-200 for shooting sports, for about a week. Whatever you're shooting you'd better make sure the light is fantastic. It doesn't like bad lighting at all.

I would spend the extra and get the IS version, or look for a used 2.8. :thumbup:

JMS803 · Mar 28, 2009

JE Kay said:
I used the 70-200 for shooting sports, for about a week. Whatever you're shooting you'd better make sure the light is fantastic. It doesn't like bad lighting at all.

I would spend the extra and get the IS version, or look for a used 2.8. :thumbup:

haha as much as I would love to et either the IS version or the 2.8 I can't afford it. Were the places you shot at mostly indoors?

JE Kay · Mar 28, 2009

Yes indoors, mostly hockey. I knew it would be kinda iffy going in with it.

I did shoot some bike racing once, not the fastest, but the light was good so I got some great shots. If the light is good, it's a good lens.

When you go to buy one make sure you try more than one copy on your body. :thumbup:

CxThree · Mar 28, 2009

I love the 70-200 F4 for outdoor sports. It's light and smaller than other L series lenses in that focal range. It's SHARP. The images are amazing. You will not be unhappy with that lens and outdoor sports.

250Gimp · Mar 29, 2009

Don't forget that you can add a 1.4x tele converter and get 280mm @ f5.6.

I have this set up and it works well in good light! The focus isi a bit slower with the TC, but still good.

JerryPH · Mar 29, 2009

JE Kay said:
Yes indoors, mostly hockey. I knew it would be kinda iffy going in with it.

Just a comment... hockey in general is always challenging becuase of the changing white balance going from one side of the rink to the other. They sure do not believe in making those lights very consistent. However, the white ice surface does do a lot to increase the lighting... surprisingly by as much as 1 to 2 full stops. If you find an ice rink challenging, events like indoor soccer or gymnastics will be just that much harder.

The reason I am saying this, is that this winter past, I went to a new local arena that just opened up and they have room for like 4 ice rinks... it was set up as 2 ice rinks and 2 indoor soccer courts. To get proper exposures, I had to use ISO 1600 and F/4 at the rink, but the soccer side was ISO 6400 and F/4 to get it just right. To increase shutter speed to eliminate motion blur fully, I had to go to F/2.8.

I was surprised and made test shots of the ceiling lights at both sides and they came out exactly the same... yet the exposure settings were vastly different becuase a fake grass surface is a very poor reflector compared to an ice surface.

After thinking about it a moment, it does become clear and it is common sense that it be this way, but once it is said, some may not have to scratch their heads as hard as I did until I figured it out... lol

For indoor events, I feel that fast glass is almost mandatory. Having a camera that is good at higher ISO is also a great help, but the glass, IMHO comes first.

Just a little extra info to perhaps help in making a decision.