thinking of a lens swap

Elaine

My sports shooting revolves around my son's swim team and baseball team. I use a Canon 40D and I currently have a Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS that I really, really like. I love the size of the lens and the results I get. However, f/4 in an indoor pool venue often doesn't allow me the shutter speeds I'd like, even at ISO 1600. So, sometimes I've tried using an 85 1.8 or my 100 2.8 macro instead. The 85 isn't long enough or sharp enough (at widest apertures) and the macro is too slow to focus. I've been wanting the 135 f/2 and thinking it could serve me for both sports and portraits, but another DGrinner suggested I sell both the 85 and the 70-200 f/4 IS and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS instead. He's probably right, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of letting go of my 70-200 f/4 IS! Maybe I'll rent one first, but I thought I'd throw my dilemma out to the sports crowd and see what you think. Should I get the 70-200 f/2.8 and let go of the f/4?

Jacobovs

Elaine wrote:

My sports shooting revolves around my son's swim team and baseball team. I use a Canon 40D and I currently have a Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS that I really, really like. I love the size of the lens and the results I get. However, f/4 in an indoor pool venue often doesn't allow me the shutter speeds I'd like, even at ISO 1600. So, sometimes I've tried using an 85 1.8 or my 100 2.8 macro instead. The 85 isn't long enough or sharp enough (at widest apertures) and the macro is too slow to focus. I've been wanting the 135 f/2 and thinking it could serve me for both sports and portraits, but another DGrinner suggested I sell both the 85 and the 70-200 f/4 IS and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS instead. He's probably right, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of letting go of my 70-200 f/4 IS! Maybe I'll rent one first, but I thought I'd throw my dilemma out to the sports crowd and see what you think. Should I get the 70-200 f/2.8 and let go of the f/4?

I can only speak for Nikon but, this is a no-brainer for me . The 70-200mm f2.8 is the single most useful lens in my bag. If I had to sell all of my lenses and only keep one, the 70-200mm f2.8 is the one I would keep. It is useful for almost all sports and makes a terrific portrait lens to boot.

rainbow

Start by looking at your photos and determine what focal length you shoot at for this need. If 135 matches, then I would strongly consider that lens. I have the 85 1.8, the 70 - 200 f/4 IS and the 135 f/2. The 135 is my most used sports lens (on both my 40D and 5D -- for volleyball and basketball).

The reason I do not consider the f/2.8 is the massive size/weight of the lens, along with the cost...

Jacobovs

rainbow wrote:

Start by looking at your photos and determine what focal length you shoot at for this need. If 135 matches, then I would strongly consider that lens. I have the 85 1.8, the 70 - 200 f/4 IS and the 135 f/2. The 135 is my most used sports lens (on both my 40D and 5D -- for volleyball and basketball).

The reason I do not consider the f/2.8 is the massive size/weight of the lens, along with the cost...

Hopefully others will weigh in on this one but I strongly disagree. I LOVE my 135mm f2, it is by a country mile my favorite portrait lens. Having said that, it does not have the nearly the flexibility of the 70-200mm f2.8. the 135mm, is not going to be a great choice for any outdoor team sports ( Baseball, soccer, lacrosse, football , softball etc), even with a tc (1.4x) it's still shy of 200mm. I'm not sure about the Canon, but the AF on the Nikon also seems much faster on the 70-200mm. Indoors, depends on the sport. It's nice to have the f2 in low light. having said that, I having shot basketball at all levels NBA to HS, the overwhelming majority of my shots are with the 70-200mm. If you are standing behind the net, you can not get a decent shot for lay ups or dunks. If you are trying to get some shots on the opposite net, it will be short. If you try to shoot hockey, it's too short. Even for Volleyball, the range is better with the 70-200mm.

I would have a hard time recommending this lens for most sports. The trade-off, as you rightly point out is the cost, I believe almost double the 135mm and the weight about 3.3 lbs vs 1.7 lbs.

KMCC

If you're serious about shooting sports, you're going to need an f/2.8 or faster lens. Trying to capture good images in low light situations (i.e., indoors and at night games) will be an exercise in frustration with an f/4 lens. It just won't capture enough light in those situations at a fast enough shutter speeds to keep images from blurring.

If you're going to concentrate on swimming and baseball, the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens will be a good choice and should give you good results; unless he plays in the outfield.

LiquidAir

I shoot indoor sports with a 135/2 and I love it (of course I also use it for portraits). The venue I shoot is is quite dim so I really appreciate the extra stop faster than f/2.8.

Elaine

Thanks for all your replies. It sounds like the solution is a simple one...get both the 70-200 2.8 AND the 135 f/2. My husband will be thrilled to hear that. I think I'll start by renting the big beast in a couple weeks when I can try it out at both a baseball game and a swim meet. We'll see if my arms can take it!

Please feel free to keep sharing your experiences with these two lenses.

wadesworld

Elaine wrote:

We'll see if my arms can take it!

As a side benefit, think how buff you arms will be after shooting with it for a year.

But there's one word to remember: monopod

zack75144

Why doesn't the 200 f/2.8L (135 f/2's big brother) get any love???????
it is a superb lens, and coming in at +/- $700, is the most affordable L series glass this side of the 17-40mm f/4

The 135 f/2 is great for indoors and her big brother the 200mm f/2.8 for outdoors.
You could buy both for the price of the 70-200:ivar

arrgh406

I think you will get far more mileage out of the 70-200 and the trade is worth it.

LiquidAir

zack75144 wrote:

Why doesn't the 200 f/2.8L (135 f/2's big brother) get any love???????
it is a superb lens, and coming in at +/- $700, is the most affordable L series glass this side of the 17-40mm f/4

The 135 f/2 is great for indoors and her big brother the 200mm f/2.8 for outdoors.
You could buy both for the price of the 70-200:ivar

I have the 200/2.8 and it is a beautiful lens. However, I use the 135/2 much more because it is a stop faster and, I find, a more useful focal length.

Another reason is that, on my 5D the slightly shorter length of the 135 balances better than the 200 which lets me hold it a a slower shutter speed. Hand holding the 135 I get reliably sharp images at f/2 and 1/125s. With the 200 I need to go to 1/2.8 at 1/250s or even 1/320s to get consistanly sharp images, so in practice I find there is at least a 2 stop difference between the lenses in effective low-light shooting.