Which one better for sports?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Duinchlfc

New Member
Aug 29, 2006
681
0
0
Sengkang
#1
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.One one hand the 2.8 will allow more light in and a faster speed with lower iso.The f4 IS has IS which helps to keep the shakes away but not sure how much it'll help in night shots.My test shots would be like at local S league games which the only available light is the spotlights.Advice please thanks.And please i don't have the money for the 2.8 IS.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,660
6
38
#7
Hi duinchlfc,

Will you have side-line access? I ask because if not, a 70-200 may not be long enough if you're in the stands.

I can't remember what body you're using, but if your cam performs ok with high ISOs like 1600 or 3200 (with some noise filtering software in post), personally speaking, you might want to consider the 100-400L. For shooting from the stands, the reach is invaluable. Also, for some reason or another, the 100-400L used seems to be available at fairly attractive prices from $1,400 - $1,900.

What you could do is rent both lenses (should cost you less than $100 for both) and try them out at an actual game. It would save you a lot of grief and $$$ in the long run.

CHEERS!
 

zj2000

New Member
Mar 10, 2007
1,465
0
0
#8
2.8 man.... but having said that 200mm isn't really long enough even on a 1.6x.... maybe you want to consider the 100-400 but this is 5.6 @ 400mm or you can try the sigma 120-300 2.8... 3k+ thou... normally i'm not a fan of 3rd party but the 300 2.8 is 7k+ so.....
 

Dec 30, 2006
1,480
0
0
#10
With my limited knowledge, I think a wider aperture beats IS. IS cannot give you back the f/stops you lose. Even with IS, you still might shake as it's a rather long lens. A tripod solves the problem nicely from you unless you want to run around here and there. In that case, use a monopod.
 

kongping

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
675
0
0
#12
With typical stadium lighting, you will get 1/160 ~ 1/250s, f/2.8 @ ISO 1600.

You can stop the player in most instances, but not the ball.

Shooting from the touchlines is not possible with the assistant referees in the way. There's also the danger of being hit by the ball/players and blocking the spectators.

At 200mm from the goal line you'll only get shots in and around the penalty area. Any further and the shot will be very loose, you can't crop too much either due to the noise @ ISO 1600.

Best bet is just to enjoy the game... =D
 

Feb 13, 2007
127
0
0
SINGAPORE
#13
There is a great article on sports photography here: http://photo.net/learn/sports/overview

I highly recommend reading this. Going back to your Question though I would guess you could try looking at a 70-200 with a tele converter x2. You will lose a stop with this setup but it will be one way to satisfy your need for reach. I highly recommend the 2.8 if possible. If you cannot afford the IS version then get a monopod.
Even if you could afford the IS version there is a possibility that you will need to go monopod anyway since it is not light and if you are going to be out on a long day - you will need this option at some point.

I have the 2.8 IS version and it is a love affair. This lens is just awesome in low light. I guess sometimes you have lenses that gel well with your style of shooting and this is one of those for me.

Good Luck on your endeavors!

David
 

nuxnewbie

New Member
Nov 2, 2006
93
0
0
#14
The fella's shooting @ night.

70-200 f/2.8 w/ 2x teleconverter?

You're kiddin' aren't you?

f/5.6, pitch illuminated only by the stadium lights?
 

Feb 13, 2007
127
0
0
SINGAPORE
#15
OK - To be clear.

I merely meant that the option exists to go to a 2x converter . This is not going to be the ultimate for night sports. Sorry if this confused.

I guess your only option is go monopod and F4.

Otherwise maybe look at Sigma : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp

The price is suitable and you can get nice image from this too!:)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom