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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:05 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Boog wrote:
Quote:
I like doing more sports photography or mainly have the opportunity to do more sports photography than indoor low light situations, but I'd love to have a 2.8 IS so that I could get the best of both worlds... Brian
OK this helps. If your primary use for the lens is sports then the 70-200 2.8 (either sigma or canon) is the much better solution. If you can't afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I would strongly recommend buying the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x TC. This is an outstanding sports solution and even with the TC it costs less than the Canon non-IS lens. The 5.6 aperture of the 70-300 is way too limiting in sports. First, it doesn't give you as good background blur which is essential in many sports. Second it won't focus as well in lower light situations (can't bringin as much light for focusing as the 2.8) and third it won't give you the shutter speeds you need in low light. And, let's be clear - low light could be a severely overcast day. I've shot softball games this past spring at 6pm where I was using f2.8 and still shooting at ISO 1600 to get the shutter speeds I needed. With a 5.6 lens I would have needed a camera capable of ISO 6400 to get the same shutter speeds - and I don't think that camera exists yet. If your main reason was wildlife, I would have said the 100mm extra reach was more benefiicial but for sports it's a no-brainer - go with a 70-200 2.8.

As to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 macro version - I would only caution this: Sigma redesinged the lens groupings for this version IMO there is risk associated with that and you arent getting a true macro lens anyway. If the lens had been out for a year and proven to have the same optical quality then OK - but IMO it's a risk I would buy the non-macro version and get garanteed quality. If macro is your thing your thing and you're buyin $800 lenses - you want a true macro lens anyway.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2007, 10:39 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

I was wondering as far as accurate focusing ,and speed of focusing ,is the sigma 70-200mm2.8 on par as the ef70-200mml ? Are they close. I know with some of my cheaper lens they tend to hunt and jump around when using auto focus and shooting sports in dim lit like night or indoors? This is a pain and i tend to go to manually focusing on an area in the gym and shooting.

Is the image qaulity and sharpness close between the two? or is the canon L worth the extra bucks?

i am a non pro just trying to catch some excellant shots of my kids,a nd their friendsin high school sports (basketball, football, softball, wrestling).



thanks for the advice .Bill B
zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2007, 10:39 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

I was wondering as far as accurate focusing ,and speed of focusing ,is the sigma 70-200mm2.8 on par as the ef70-200mml ? Are they close. I know with some of my cheaper lens they tend to hunt and jump around when using auto focus and shooting sports in dim lit like night or indoors? This is a pain and i tend to go to manually focusing on an area in the gym and shooting.

Is the image qaulity and sharpness close between the two? or is the canon L worth the extra bucks?

i am a non pro just trying to catch some excellant shots of my kids,a nd their friendsin high school sports (basketball, football, softball, wrestling).



thanks for the advice .Bill B
zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2007, 11:24 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

zwdb08 wrote:
Quote:
I was wondering as far as accurate focusing ,and speed of focusing ,is the sigma 70-200mm2.8 on par as the ef70-200mml ? Are they close.

Is the image qaulity and sharpness close between the two? or is the canon L worth the extra bucks?
Bill - the answer to this question depends on who you ask - a canon owner or a sigma owner.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"My honest opinion based on research and discussions with sports shooters who have used both lenses suggests that the Sigma IQ is on par with the Canon and the focus ability is on par in good light and about 90-95% in low light.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"For what it's worth I chose the Sigma and have been very happy with it.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
Quote:
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"i am a non pro just trying to catch some excellant shots of my kids,a nd their friendsin high school sports (basketball, football, softball, wrestling).
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"OK - I want to warn you that either of the 70-200 2.8 lenses is going to have limitations in all these sports:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Basketball: In my experience, 2.8 isn't fast enough for decent shutter speeds in most high school gyms unless you want to shoot at ISO 3200. 3200 can be usable but I still try to avoid it if I can. If you can shoot from the floor, the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are both better lenses for basketball.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Football: If they are night gagmes you absolutely need 2.8 - so you don't have another lens option below $2000. But realize, you need to shoot from the sidelines not the stands - 200mm is really only good for about 25 yards of coverage if you want sharp photos.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Softball: 200mm is too short to reach across the softball field. I would recommend using a 1.4x TC on the 70-200. Even then, if you have to shoot from behind the fence, 280mm will be a bit short but it's the best you can do.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Wrestling: OK, wrestling is a bit different. On one hand you can get away with slower shutter speeds much of the time since the action is often slower than other sports (exceptions on throws and some quick reversals but overall wrestling has a lot of pauses). On the other side, lighting down by the mat is usually terrible. You don't get much reflection and faces are often downward facing so you have a LOT of shadows to deal with. My advice for wrestling would be to use an external flash. If you don't have or don't want to use one, one of the 1.8 lenses will do better than a 70-200 2.8. If you do use a flash the flexibility of the zoom will be great.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I realize you're not intending to be a pro. But you are looking to spend $900-$1200 so I think you should understand going in that even the Canon 70-200 2.8 isn't a miracle worker. You're not going to shoot football from the stands, you're not going to get good exposures without flash in the gym and for the outdoor sports you really need to stay close to the action (although using a TC will extend your reach at the cost of a stop in aperture - i.e. the lens becomes 4.0 with a 1.4 tc).

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I don't want to discourage you but I don't want you to have unrealistic expectations of what your money is going to get you either.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2007, 4:45 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

I had the same problem last week deciding between the two lenses and in the end opted for the 70-300 IS USM because I needed the IS. I haven't had a lot of time to test it out but from what I have done so far I am very pleased with the lens.Focusing is very quick and accurate. Images are sharp at both ends of the zoom even when taken at the widest aperture.Contrast is goodbut make sure you get and use the Lens Hood, which doesn't come with the lens.It was out of stock when I ordered and I notice a little lowering of the contrast without it.


Link to a couple of image with this lens (last 3).

http://photosbyjohn.mediaobject.co.uk/c1222975.html


John

jacom70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 2:03 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Newbie here...

I don't think I saw this discussed yet, so here it goes:

Just got a Canon XTI and in additon to my 28-80USM (from my Elan II), I want to get a lense thatI can get some shots at my son's football games (American Football). These aretypically played just prior to dusk and under the big lights. Question is, can I get a lens that willprovide me withgood shots in these conditions? I was looking at 70-300 IS USM or the 70-2004/L USM. Either a good fit and if so, which is better.Purchasing an L - series IS is not an option for me.

Thanks,

Ted
thadius65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 2:56 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

thadius65 wrote:
Quote:
I can get some shots at my son's football games (American Football). These aretypically played just prior to dusk and under the big lights. Question is, can I get a lens that willprovide me withgood shots in these conditions? I was looking at 70-300 IS USM or the 70-2004/L USM. Either a good fit and if so, which is better.Purchasing an L - series IS is not an option for me.

Thanks,

Ted
Ted,

To be honest I'm confused a bit by the 'just prior to dusk under the big lights' part. Is this High School varsity football or some other level? If it's varsity, then by the end of the season the whole game will be in the dark. For the sake of argument, let's say it is HS varsity. What you'll find is for the first couple of games, f4 is OK for the first half. By the 2nd half you would need ISO 3200 at f4. By the third week or so, the amount of time you can get by with f4 will shrink to the 1st quarter w/o ISO 3200 and by the middle of the season you won't be able to use f4 at all. When the sun goes down, I typically find myself shooting at ISO 3200 f2.8 and 1/320-1/500 (depending on the stadium involved).

IF we're talking HS varsity football, the 70-300 would only be usefull for the first couple of games and even then only for part of the game. The focus will really start to suffer and by 3rd or 4th week it will be pretty bad.

But, as I've stated before - the real key is having access to the field. If you're shooting from the stands, it's not worth it to buy a decent lens anyway because you're too far away. Even if you're shooting from at the fence, it's tough because you're so limited as to where you can shoot from and you're looking at adding another 15 yards to your distance from the action.

So, here's what I'm saying. The 70-200 f4 is too short to shoot from behind the fence of HS football. If you have field access, you'll only be able to shoot part of the first few games. The 75-300 will give you more reach to shoot from the fence but you'll probably only be able to shoot 5-8 quarters of football in total.

The only other option is to use a flash to compensate for the poor apertures. You'll at least be able to get some shots the whole season. Obviously you'll get a lot more if you're on the field rather than behind the fence. You're keeper rate will be much lower than someone with ISO 3200 and a 2.8 lens but it's better than nothing.

One other lens option - I understand L lenses are out of your budget. Could you swing the $850 Sigma 70-200 2.8?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 3:09 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Consindering we are looking at $549 for 70-300 IS USM, I could probably save enough til football season to get the Sigma. The guy at the local photo shop said that it was critical to get image stabilization vs the L-series. So if I have trouble keeping steady with a 200mm 2.8, that could be trouble. Maybe a mono-pod?

Sorry for the confusion on the time, etc. My son is going to be in 10th and playing JV, but they play around the same time just on a different day. So allyou said holds true.

Thanks!

Ted
thadius65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 5:07 PM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

thadius65 wrote:
Quote:
The guy at the local photo shop said that it was critical to get image stabilization vs the L-series. So if I have trouble keeping steady with a 200mm 2.8, that could be trouble. Maybe a mono-pod?
Ted, unless you have a physical condition where you're not steady anymore (which some people do), then IS is totally useless for your needs. If you don't have such a condition, then it illustrates why you should never take the advice of a salesman at a camera store. If you don't have a physical condition the salesman was aware of then I'd steer clear of any advice from him - he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. For this type of sport you want fast shutter speeds - preferably 1/500 or better. But as I said you may have to settle for less. At those speeds IS will provide marginal value. And IS doesn't stop motion blur so if you follow this guy's advice you'll be standing there with a perfectly stabalized lens that is too slow to focus and have a bunch of either underexposed shots or blurry shots from all the motion blur. Also, the 70-200 f4 and 70-300 are not heavy lenses. They will appear so the first time you shoot with them. But after a few outings, you won't have an issue.

If you do have a physical limitation then IS can be beneficial but I would suggest a monopod in that case above and beyond IS.

Now if you do get the 70-200 2.8, it is a heavier lens. Many people hand hold the lens but it's perfectly acceptable to use a monopod. It provides much better stability than IS and you don't get fatigue from holding the lens. I personally ignore people who suggest that monopods are for wimps. The only thing that matters is the results. If using a monopod helps you get better results then do it.




JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 5:10 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

thadius65 wrote:
Quote:
... The guy at the local photo shop said that it was critical to get image stabilization vs the L-series...
May be he's not shooting sport?
-> I 100% agree with JohnG

The 70-300 @ f/5.6 is two stops (i.e. shutter speed) slower than an f/2.8!!!
NHL 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 10:30 PM.