Lens for sports question

GadgetRick

Ok, doing more things which require more reach than my measly 28-70mm. I want a 70-200 L but money is a bit too tight to purchase the IS version at the moment. My question is, if I were to get the non-IS L, do you think I'd run into issues shooting fast-moving sports? My reasoning is that I'd normally want IS off when shooting action sports from what I can tell. So is IS really needed for shooting sports? Sure I want the IS version--and I'll get one when the funds are available--but I'm thinking I can get away with the non-IS version for now.

Just checking with those of you who've shot sports a lot longer than I have. What do you think?

Thanks.

Ann McRae

You don't mention which sports, indoor or out, or general lighting conditions. I don't think the IS is as important as either fast glass and/or clean high ISO. Tell us more so we can help out!

ann

GadgetRick wrote: »

Ok, doing more things which require more reach than my measly 28-70mm. I want a 70-200 L but money is a bit too tight to purchase the IS version at the moment. My question is, if I were to get the non-IS L, do you think I'd run into issues shooting fast-moving sports? My reasoning is that I'd normally want IS off when shooting action sports from what I can tell. So is IS really needed for shooting sports? Sure I want the IS version--and I'll get one when the funds are available--but I'm thinking I can get away with the non-IS version for now.

Just checking with those of you who've shot sports a lot longer than I have. What do you think?

Thanks.

chefdave

If you are shooting a lot of sports at night then you at crapping HS venues then you might want the IS version. I don't have the IS version. And do quite well with-out it. I talk to a lot of other photog's on this and they all tell me they never use it. ! guy I should with tells me he only uses it when he shoot concerts. So, as a sports lens I personally don't see the value. Both my 70/200 and my 300 are not IS.

johng

if you're not shooting a lot of low shutter speed panning shots then IS isn't beneficial in a 200mm lens for sports. You want a minimum of 1/400 anyway - at that speed hand-holding should never be an issue. If your speeds are below that you're using the wrong tools for the job - either need higher ISO or external light source or faster lens. Now, here's the caveat: sometimes like with the f4 lens, the IS version is sharper. Same is supposed to be true about the new 2.8 IS II lens - supposed to be a good deal sharper. Still, you can get professional grade shots with the non-IS version - it's sharper than the old IS version. Now that raises a couple questions - first and foremost: is 200mm enough reach for what you want to shoot? It's good for about 25 yards of coverage. So fine for little league and small field childrens soccer but when you move up to full field soccer or basebal or lacrosse then 200mm is woefully short. Don't believe those that would tell you everyone must have a 70-200 2.8 - depending on what sports you shoot it might be the right tool or it might not. So, what sports do you intend to shoot? At what level of play? Where will you be shooting from?

GadgetRick

Thanks. Interesting discussion already.

I shoot a lot of MMA and use my 28-70 for that. However, there are times when the 70-200 would be beneficial for this and I'm hoping to pick up a used 1D Mkx at some point in the next 6 (or so) months. So I'd have my 28-70 and 70-200. I'd have both my 50D and a 1D and just keep a lens on each body for quick changes. 70-200 won't do me a bit of good close up but it will across the cage.

Also trying to get involved with a local minor league team--NJ Jackals. They have a photog but, from what I've heard, I may be able to get involved at some level. Besides, I can get into any game and get close enough where 200mm is plenty of reach except for outfield shots.

Also plan on doing some soccer shooting. I know more reach is better for this but I just can't come up with the money for a 300mm+ lens anytime soon. But would love to get something longer in the future. I'd just have to concentrate on a smaller area of the field until I could afford a longer lens. Besides, soccer won't be anything I ever do a LOT of anyway.

Plus, I can use the 70-200 for many other things including some portrait work and other things I'm doing (non-sports).

mercphoto

chefdave wrote: »

If you are shooting a lot of sports at night then you at crapping HS venues then you might want the IS version. I don't have the IS version. And do quite well with-out it. I talk to a lot of other photog's on this and they all tell me they never use it. ! guy I should with tells me he only uses it when he shoot concerts. So, as a sports lens I personally don't see the value. Both my 70/200 and my 300 are not IS.

But why do you think that IS would be worthwhile in a dim-light HS venue when shooting sports? The problem is that IS stabilizes the motion of the camera. It does nothing to stabilize the motion of the subject. For that you need fast shutters. If you can hand-hold the lens at 1/60 of a second that is worthless if you are trying to shoot high school basketball. To freeze action on a basketball player you need a fast shutter.

In other words Rick, you don't need the IS to shoot sports. But you do want f/2.8 or faster glass.

Mitchell

mercphoto wrote: »

But why do you think that IS would be worthwhile in a dim-light HS venue when shooting sports? The problem is that IS stabilizes the motion of the camera. It does nothing to stabilize the motion of the subject. For that you need fast shutters. If you can hand-hold the lens at 1/60 of a second that is worthless if you are trying to shoot high school basketball. To freeze action on a basketball player you need a fast shutter.

In other words Rick, you don't need the IS to shoot sports. But you do want f/2.8 or faster glass.

+1

Image stabilization is not useful for 99.9% of sports shooting. Fast glass and a camera with good high ISO performance is the key.

GadgetRick

Ok, so it's good to know I'm not (totally) crazy. The more I thought about it, the less I felt I needed IS for sports photography. If I can find a good deal on a used f2.8 I might opt for that then.

Thanks a bunch. Totally answered my question.

mercphoto

Rick, if money is really tight I'd strongly suggest looking into the 200/2.8L prime lens. Very very sharp, lightweight, great lens for sports. You might be surprised how often you do NOT need a zoom.

GadgetRick

mercphoto wrote: »

Rick, if money is really tight I'd strongly suggest looking into the 200/2.8L prime lens. Very very sharp, lightweight, great lens for sports. You might be surprised how often you do NOT need a zoom.

Hmm, that's another thought, hadn't considered that.

Decisions decisions...

mercphoto

GadgetRick wrote: »

Hmm, that's another thought, hadn't considered that.

Decisions decisions...

If it helps with the decision process most field sports are shot with primes, such as the 300 or the 400 f/2.8 varieties. I used to shoot a lot of kart racing with a 300/2.8. If I still had that lens I'd be using it instead of my 70-200, which often needs a teleconverter and is almost always fully zoomed anyway.

GadgetRick

mercphoto wrote: »

If it helps with the decision process most field sports are shot with primes, such as the 300 or the 400 f/2.8 varieties. I used to shoot a lot of kart racing with a 300/2.8. If I still had that lens I'd be using it instead of my 70-200, which often needs a teleconverter and is almost always fully zoomed anyway.

Yes, this I already know. Unfortunately, those nice primes are just out of my money league at the moment. That's why I'm considering the 70-200 as I can use it for other things and it helps justify the expenditure. I don't earn ANY money off field sports (at least not yet). Sort of a chicken and egg scenario, I know...

nipprdog

GadgetRick wrote: »

Yes, this I already know. Unfortunately, those nice primes are just out of my money league at the moment. That's why I'm considering the 70-200 as I can use it for other things and it helps justify the expenditure. I don't earn ANY money off field sports (at least not yet). Sort of a chicken and egg scenario, I know...

Look for a good deal on a used 300f4. I used mine to raise enough funds for my 300 2.8.

travischance

GadgetRick wrote: »

Ok, so it's good to know I'm not (totally) crazy. The more I thought about it, the less I felt I needed IS for sports photography. If I can find a good deal on a used f2.8 I might opt for that then.

Thanks a bunch. Totally answered my question.

Adorama Used department. I'm not sure what your budget is but they normally have several 300 2.8's & from time to time, I've seen a 70-200 2.8. The condition ranges from Fair to Demo. Add a 2 year used warranty and you should be fine. Best of luck!

GadgetRick

travischance wrote: »

Adorama Used department. I'm not sure what your budget is but they normally have several 300 2.8's & from time to time, I've seen a 70-200 2.8. The condition ranges from Fair to Demo. Add a 2 year used warranty and you should be fine. Best of luck!

Haven't checked their used stuff in a while but I remember their used prices not being that far off from new.

travischance

GadgetRick wrote: »

Haven't checked their used stuff in a while but I remember their used prices not being that far off from new.

Again depending upon your budget & if cosmetics aren't important, you could find a good deal. Make sure you add a "MACK" 2+ year used warranty (normally about 10% of the cost of the lens).

70-200 2.8L (non-IS) "Very Good" $929
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20402227.html

200 2.8L II "Excellent" $649
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20385710.html

kini62

I have and use the 70-200/2.8 non IS and it's a great lens. In addition to the other shopping suggestions you might want to look at Fred Miranda. They have a huge buy/sell forum. Also KEH.com has a decent used selection plus they offer 14 days or so on used items.

Gene

GadgetRick

Thanks Travis. That's about the price I'm seeing for used 70-200 non-IS on Craig's List. Would rather buy from a store if the price is that close.

Might pull the trigger on that one.

travischance

GadgetRick wrote: »

Thanks Travis. That's about the price I'm seeing for used 70-200 non-IS on Craig's List. Would rather buy from a store if the price is that close.

Might pull the trigger on that one.

No problem. Plus Adorama has a 30-day guarantee. If it doesn't work as described, simply return it. Post pics!

HelenOster

GadgetRick wrote: »

Thanks Travis. That's about the price I'm seeing for used 70-200 non-IS on Craig's List. Would rather buy from a store if the price is that close.

Might pull the trigger on that one.

Let me know if you'd like us to email you some pictures of it before you commit!: HelenO@adorama.com

travischance

HelenOster wrote: »

Let me know if you'd like us to email you some pictures of it before you commit!: HelenO@adorama.com

Helen is excellent at follow-up with customers. She & I have worked together both in the past & recently with my 300 2.8L purchase from the used/refurbished department. Definitely dependable & works on behalf of the customer.

jonh68

I think getting a 70-200 2.8 regardless if its IS or not is the right thing in regards to sports. It is a staple in every sports photog bag. I wouldn't get a prime 200 over the zoom. The zoom will be more useful. Save the money for the big primes.

GadgetRick

travischance wrote: »

Helen is excellent at follow-up with customers. She & I have worked together both in the past & recently with my 300 2.8L purchase from the used/refurbished department. Definitely dependable & works on behalf of the customer.

Yes, she's been quite helpful. Seeing if I can work a deal with Adorama on that lens.

kidzmom

Hey Rick!
The 70-200 is a beast of a lens! I just got one this summer and LOVE it! Did I say that loud enough? It is amazing!!! I did go with the IS though because I do a lot of portrait work and wanted to to cross-over into portrait territory. I'm also going to be doing some sports shooting and am not sure whether it will be necessary or not. I posted a Senior shoot I did recently on People (with the swimming shots) and many of those were with this lens (portrait shots and the swimming shots). It is awesome for macro-type shots also-- the DSS challenge for this month "Milk" was also with this lens (and it won, lol)! It packs a bang for the buck. I have done a bunch of IS vs non-is shots. IF you use a mono or tripod then you don't need the IS, but if you hand hold on portrait work or other macro-type shots.. then you REALLY need the IS for sure! I know this is supposed to be just for sports, but anyway...my 2c on the IS since you can get so much more out of the lens when it is IS. I bought a used one from Adorama and ended up returning it for a new one! Their customer support was wonderful and the shipping was lighning fast! They didn't ask any questions and I had the brand new one in 2 days. I think I paid 1500 for the used, but then decided that for only a few hundred more I'd have a brand new one..so I bit the bullet. It is worth every single penny! I'm sure you will be happy with whatever you choose
Kelly

GadgetRick

Well, if I had the money, I'd opt for the IS version as you can always turn it off. Unfortunately, I just don't have the funds.

I almost always shoot portraits with a tripod so I feel I can get away with it.

I figure I can always, "upgrade," if I get a decent used non-IS and pay a reasonable price, without too much pain. But I still want the IS version for sure...

photodad1

I just bought an Canon 70-200mm/ 2.8L non IS and it works well with my Canon 50D. You should be fine shooting action or sports with the non-IS version.