Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 11, 2004, 10:46 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
royy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 18
Default

I am considering these two lenses for sports. I really don't want to spend the $2000 for the 2.8 unless those of you that have tried both lenses can tell me the 2.8 is that much better. Most of my sports will be outdoors and include mostly baseball, football, soccer, and roller hockey.

For those that shoot sports, can I get away with an f/4?

Thanks,
Roy
royy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 12, 2004, 6:35 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

This is the same dilemma facing most 70-200 f/2.8 vs 70-200 f/4 buyers as well... Only you can decide:
FYI http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

PRO
1. The F/4 is slighly sharper than the f/2.8 (although the f/2.8 is an excellent lens)
2. Smaller and only 1/2 the weight
3. Less expensive

CON
1. One shutter-stop slower -> go one ISO higher
2. With a 2x TC one loses the AF (otherwise would have made a nice 600mm)
3. The to-kill-for Bokeh of a 300 f/2.8

You should also consider the kind of "sport" you're shooting: In group sports you might not want the largest aperture, but a smaller aperture to have enough DOF to cover all the players. If you want to isolate one player from his background then the faster lens will help with its Bokeh...

Personally I see it differently, the 120-300 f/2.8 is a bargain compared to a 300 f/2.8 prime at only a fraction of the cost but much more flexible in its use! :-):-):-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2004, 11:30 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/118410

... Also check out the tip on CF-4 function toward the end of the link (and also several pictures with the 2x TC attached)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2004, 10:06 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
royy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 18
Default

I really went the other way on this one. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. I liked the size and weight compared to the 120-300 f/2.8. That was a nice lens too, but I didn't realize it was that big. I really want some thing that I can hand hold for the day. I think I would only last several min with the 120-300. Plus the IS means I don't always have to have a tripod or monopod with me.

Thanks for every one's input



Roy
royy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:47 PM.