70-200mm advice?!

JennyGW said:
You absolutely need IS for sports. It's not always sunny and you'll sometimes be indoors.
Click to expand...
Thats absolutly shocking information, IS is only any use for handheld slow shutter speed work of say 1/100th a sec and below, its only other use of any worth is for panning shots. WOW, really
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
IMO the latest bodies that can handle noise much better than older bodies used to have made it an easy choice,I've owned the sigma 2.8 and the canon F/4

coupled with a 7D the canon 70-200 F/4 produced the best motorsport shots I've ever taken, one stop isn"t a huge amount to compensate for by using 200 or 400 ISO, as long as your body is good with higher ISOs i'd go for the 70-200 f/4 every time

carting a 2.8 round a racetrack all day gets heavy, funds don"t permit at the moment but as soon as they do I'll be going for the 7D or 7D II and a 70-200 f/4
 
Gary Coyle said:
Abolutly 100% ignore the information from Jenny
Click to expand...

Gary, you may disagree with me, I'm fine with that, but posting comments like this really isn't helpful. Fine to state your case, but not good forum etiquette to bash other posters.

I am a professional unit stills and BTS photographer covering film and theatre, more to the point, I get paid for it and I HAVE to get my shots for the client. I can assure you the musicals I have covered are not slow in action. I run with two cameras, one with my 24-105, the other with the 70-200. As with sports, which I have also covered (photos in the press, etc.), there will be low light situations. To shoot reliably at 200mm and with no IS the shutter needs to be at 1/250th or better (not 100th), with IS I've shot as low as 1/20th and still had usable shots. There is more to shooting sports than the fast action shots, there is general reportage.

I can guarantee the IS makes the lens a lot more practical. Before getting the IS version of the lens it stayed in my bag far too much of the time which isn't great, even for such a reasonably priced lens, but when I've invested in gear it has to earn it's keep.

The image quality of the IS version of the lens is noticeably better and it is sharper. It focuses more reliably and doesn't have the "needless refocus to out of focus" problems I had with the non-IS version.

The 2.8 is twice the weight of the f4. A massive 1.5 kilos for the 2.8. Fine for a few portrait shots, but when you are on an event for hours at a time (I've been on shoots for up to 12 hours) the weight of your gear becomes an issue - especially using two cameras. The difference in bokeh and separation from the 2.8 to the f4 is noticeable, but it's not THAT big a difference.

OP, good luck with whichever choice you make :)
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
Gary, you may disagree with me, I'm fine with that, but posting comments like this really isn't helpful. Fine to state your case, but not good forum etiquette to bash other posters.

I am a professional unit stills and BTS photographer covering film and theatre, more to the point, I get paid for it and I HAVE to get my shots for the client. I can assure you the musicals I have covered are not slow in action. I run with two cameras, one with my 24-105, the other with the 70-200. As with sports, which I have also covered (photos in the press, etc.), there will be low light situations. To shoot reliably at 200mm and with no IS the shutter needs to be at 1/250th or better (not 100th), with IS I've shot as low as 1/20th and still had usable shots. There is more to shooting sports than the fast action shots, there is general reportage.

I can guarantee the IS makes the lens a lot more practical. Before getting the IS version of the lens it stayed in my bag far too much of the time which isn't great, even for such a reasonably priced lens, but when I've invested in gear it has to earn it's keep.

The image quality of the IS version of the lens is noticeably better and it is sharper. It focuses more reliably and doesn't have the "needless refocus to out of focus" problems I had with the non-IS version.

The 2.8 is twice the weight of the f4. A massive 1.5 kilos for the 2.8. Fine for a few portrait shots, but when you are on an event for hours at a time (I've been on shoots for up to 12 hours) the weight of your gear becomes an issue - especially using two cameras. The difference in bokeh and separation from the 2.8 to the f4 is noticeable, but it's not THAT big a difference.

OP, good luck with whichever choice you make :)
Click to expand...
Really, exactly where did i bash you!!!!!!!

Whoopy do for you, check my website, until last season when i retired/quit i shot SPORTS professionally and got paid from the National papers so am more than able to comment on low light sports shooting and the NON relevance of using IS in those conditions, just like the OP asked about.

Then thats not sports now is it, thats reportage and the OP specifically asked about sports

No one says it doesn't make it more practical
 
Gary Coyle said:
Really, exactly where did i bash you!!!!!!!

Whoopy do for you, check my website, until last season when i retired/quit i shot SPORTS professionally and got paid from the National papers so am more than able to comment on low light sports shooting and the NON relevance of using IS in those conditions, just like the OP asked about.

Then thats not sports now is it, thats reportage and the OP specifically asked about sports

No one says it doesn't make it more practical
Click to expand...

When you do sports you do reportage AS WELL.
 
:eek: it really has been eventful while I've been at uni!!

daugirdas said:
buy Canon f/4 now, then upgrade to 2.8 when you make some profit. Best of both worlds really.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking, cheers! (y)

GeeJay57 said:
If you've decided on the Canon 70-200mm f/4, perhaps renting one for a weekend first just to confirm your decision might be an idea.

http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/product/canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-l-is-usm

Try it with IS on and off, see how you get on.
Click to expand...

£40 for 3 days sounds cheap enough but once postage is added its more like £70-80! I've thought about it but to be honest I'd rather just take the risk. Living life on the edge!! :banana:

-

On the IS front, thanks for your input both Jenny and Gary... :exit:
but I'm probably going for the non-IS version as personally I think the extra cost outweighs the benefit of IS (in my case) :)
 
I had the f/4 (non IS) when I was a student. It's a nice little lens, and will serve you well. Focus may not be quite as quick or accurate as a 2.8 lens, especially in low light, but you could do a lot worse. And as the experienced sports shooters here have already pointed out, you won't miss IS shooting sports 95% of the time. It can be handy if you're doing some more arty slower shutterspeed stuff, but there are ways to work around that as well. Just think of it as forcing you to use better handholding technique! ;)

Weight wise, they're hardly big lenses, the f/4 non-IS - you'll probably forget you've got it on after a while. Even the 2.8 IS is far from a beast. I've done ~90 hours in 5 days with the 2.8 IS (plus 2 cameras, and 4 other lenses) weight isn't an issue. (y)
 
I've bought a used Canon 70-200 f4 from eBay - £338 including postage :)

Thanks for the help guys!! (y)
 
I hope you enjoy your 'new' lens.. :)
 
Because it is?

IS/VR/OS takes time to kick in, albeit not long. Not long is a very long time in sport and that can ruin your shot.

It's a conversation that's been had in the sports forum ad infinitum.
 
DemiLion said:
IS/VR/OS takes time to kick in, albeit not long. Not long is a very long time in sport and that can ruin your shot.
Click to expand...
Never a problem with correct technique.

It takes longer for me to raise the camera to my eyeball than it does for IS to start up. If I'm looking through the viewfinder I'll keep jabbing the shutter button to ensure the image is near to being focused.
 
hollis_f said:
Never a problem with correct technique.

It takes longer for me to raise the camera to my eyeball than it does for IS to start up. If I'm looking through the viewfinder I'll keep jabbing the shutter button to ensure the image is near to being focused.
Click to expand...


There are a fair few sports photographers that would disagree with you. A lot of them shoot for national papers, PA, Getty etc.
 
hollis_f said:
Never a problem with correct technique.

It takes longer for me to raise the camera to my eyeball than it does for IS to start up. If I'm looking through the viewfinder I'll keep jabbing the shutter button to ensure the image is near to being focused.
Click to expand...
In sport if you snooze you lose, not only does it take time for the IS motor to start it also takes anything up to half second to stabilise the gyro/axis by which time the action has been and gone and theres a major risk of capturing an even worse image if you actually attempt fire the shutter during the stabilisation period or even before it's fully settled, for the overwhelming majority of sports where you would be looking to use a highish shutter speed its totally worthless and yes, an absolute hinderence, ive worked professionally with and alongside many pros and not one of them ever used IS/VR unless they were turning the camera into the stands, keeping the ISO low and hooting a los shutter speed of 1/100th or less or were looking for an artictic an drag and zoom effect to their images

www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solution/image-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it

This sentence sums it up

"Before getting into the nitty-gritty of the subject, it’s important to clarify a common misconception about image stabilization, which is that it enables you to “freeze” fast-moving objects at slower shutter speeds. This is totally false. Image stabilization only allows you the ability to capture sharp images of static subjects at slower speeds. Moving objects will be equally blurry or streaky—and in some cases blurrier or shakier with the IS turned on."

http://baselineshots.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/sports-photography-101-part-iv-image.html
 
Last edited:
Aside from the IS argument, my lens came yesterday!! :runaway:

Haven't had chance to use it yet though, I've been locked in the darkness of a TV studio 9-5 every day. Then I have a 3,500 word report to write this weekend... :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top