Canon 70-200 2.8 IS

[moab mark]

Dan,
I've got a question for the resident expert, the eagle pics were amazing.
I have been looking at the 70-200. I would like a faster lense, my son plays hockey and my daughter plays both indoor, outdoor soccer and volleyball. My questions is it worth the extra money for imager stabilization or not? The lense is already a little steep for me to swallow for amateur photography. But I don't want to look back and go should done it. Or do you suggest a different lense?
THanks

[R]

Keep in mind that image stabilization systems only compensate for camera movement, NOT for subject movement, and are less useful for shooting sports action than you might think. IF you are planning to shoot a lot of low-light sports, the key is lenses with larger maximum apertures. f/2.8 is certainly larger than the largest aperture of some amateur lenses, but often is not enough to allow the shutter speeds needed to stop action under challenging lighting conditions. You might consider an 85mm f/1.8 - Canon makes a pretty nice one for under $400. There is also a decent 135mm f2.0 that might suit you.

Carpey - back me up on this. :nod:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Word. Richard, thanks for saving me some time :2thumbs:

I will also second the 85 1.8, perfect for volleyball. Hockey is tough no matter how you slice it, the players move so fast, and the rink is big. 135 f2 is a little spendy, but nice. Or you can try and use off camera flash. Also complicated and expensive.

BUT... The 70-200 is pretty much owned by every photographer for a reason. Probably not the best for what you want though.

[moab mark]

What do you guys recommend for soccer games?
Mark

[CarpeyBiggs]

What do you guys recommend for soccer games?
Mark

Outside? 400. Maybe a 300 with extender. Or if they get close to you, 70-200. When I've shot soccer in the past, I have a 400 on one camera, and a 70-200 on the other. When they get close, I pick up the small guy, drop the big guy. Problem is you want their faces, so if you shoot from the sideline, you get their profiles more often than not. I prefer to shoot from the endlines, so the ball tends to come straight at me.

How's that for no help? :nod:

Basically, a 70-200 is the most versatile sports lens. Mine is NON-IS. Combined with a 1.4x, it could get you some good shots. But, you pretty much need a whole slew of lenses to really get great stuff in different situations.

Now, how was that for even less help? :haha:

[moab mark]

How do the extenders effect the quality of the pics?
If you are using a digital rebel with a canon 75-300 4-5.6 how much difference will you see in quality etc of pics between this lense and a 70 -200?

[sparker1]

I like my Canon 100-400 mm with IS. Higher ISO often makes up for the slower lens.

[R]

How do the extenders effect the quality of the pics?
If you are using a digital rebel with a canon 75-300 4-5.6 how much difference will you see in quality etc of pics between this lense and a 70 -200?

Good teleconverters on expensive glass = decent.
Cheap teleconverters on cheap glass = might as well use your cell phone.

[R]

What do you guys recommend for soccer games?
Mark

I've got a very-well-used 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF Nikkor that is the bomb for outdoor sports in daylight. It does require something of a lost art: manual focusing. Also, I am with Carpey - I tend to work a corner when shooting soccer, and something in the 400mm range makes that possible.

[gonzo]

One of my buddies (http://photo.carbonimagery.com/) does photography for Real Salt Lake, and he's using a Canon 300mm (not sure of the aperture range, but it's probably the f2.8). Sometimes he uses an extender, sometimes he doesn't, depends on the conditions.

He does, however, have a press pass, which lets him get as close to the field as any non-player, so he can probably cherry pick the sweet spots to get the best photos.

[moab mark]

Im confused,
I rented a 70-200 2.8 yesterday to use up to steiner last night at my sons hockey game. To be honest I felt the pics I took with my low quality 35-200 zoom were as good if not better????. I shot on AV and used iso from 200-1600. There was not nearly the consistency in the pics from the rented lenses as my lense. Also seemed more diffucult to focus? With the rental on 2.8 and a high iso I was shooting in the 1/2000 to 1/4000 speed. I am using just a rebel camera. Any ideas. Well to say the least I was not to impressed. I figured using the high end lense along my lenses I would see more difference. The rental also kept turning the ice in the pics slightly pink?
Mark

[gonzo]

Were you shooting handheld? It looks like that Canon EF 70-200mm weighs nearly three pounds, which may be hard to hold steady. And since the Canon lens is almost certainly longer (in physical length) than your cheaper 35-200 (Tokina?) any camera shake would be exaggerated.

Dan or Richard can correct me if I'm wrong (which is a near certainty) but I believe the IS reduces your speed by about about three stops. That could account for some blurring.

Over the weekend I was shooting with a 100-400mm IS lens, and I noticed a night and day difference in sharpness when using a tripod - even with the IS turned on.

As for the pink ice...isn't that a gimmick (http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2008/01/whats-cure-for-pink-ice.html) these days?

Anyway...take anything I say with a grain of salt...I'm a total amateur.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Im confused,
I rented a 70-200 2.8 yesterday to use up to steiner last night at my sons hockey game. To be honest I felt the pics I took with my low quality 35-200 zoom were as good if not better????. I shot on AV and used iso from 200-1600. There was not nearly the consistency in the pics from the rented lenses as my lense. Also seemed more diffucult to focus? With the rental on 2.8 and a high iso I was shooting in the 1/2000 to 1/4000 speed. I am using just a rebel camera. Any ideas. Well to say the least I was not to impressed. I figured using the high end lense along my lenses I would see more difference. The rental also kept turning the ice in the pics slightly pink?
Mark

Really, there could be a handful of things going on right here. At a shutter speed of 1/2000 to 1/4000, you wouldn't even need to use IS. IS will do nothing to improve shutter speeds, it simply reduces motion blur effectively 2 or 3 stops. Meaning, if you were shooting a static subject at 200mm, you would want about a shutter speed of 1/200 to eliminate motion blur. With IS, you could potentially shoot at 1/50 or maybe even 1/25th to keep it sharp. Of course, if anything in the scene is moving, they will be blurry. So for sports, it doesn't help much.

What you are describing may be a rental lens issue. Maybe it has focus issues. Or perhaps you are using some poor technique. Maybe you are in one-shot focus mode, and you would be better served in AI Servo.

Pink ice? Again, could be a multitude of reasons. Is it every frame? Might be the cyclical lights used in indoor arenas, and if you catch it in a weird frequency, it will display only certain colors of the spectrum. Could be that the lights are tricking your white balance. Are you shooting RAW? I can give you my email and you can send a file I can look at. Even JPG could be helpful. Send me a file straight out of the camera, and I can look at the EXIF and possibly offer some insight. Might just be a dud rental lens though.

The 70-200 is normally quite impressive, to say the least.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Were you shooting handheld? It looks like that Canon EF 70-200mm weighs nearly three pounds, which may be hard to hold steady.
Definitely a possibility.


Dan or Richard can correct me if I'm wrong (which is a near certainty) but I believe the IS reduces your speed by about about three stops. That could account for some blurring.
This is incorrect. You lose no light for IS. It effectively helps you "gain" light at a rate of 2 or 3 stops, by minimizing motion blur induced by an unsteady hand. But it will do nothing to improve nor hinder shutter speeds.

[gonzo]

Dan or Richard can correct me if I'm wrong (which is a near certainty) but I believe the IS reduces your speed by about about three stops. That could account for some blurring.
This is incorrect. You lose no light for IS. It effectively helps you "gain" light at a rate of 2 or 3 stops, by minimizing motion blur induced by an unsteady hand. But it will do nothing to improve nor hinder shutter speeds.

See? This is why nothing I say should ever be believed. After going back and re-reading the website where they talk about how the IS works, I can see that I totally misunderstood it on my first reading. Duh.

[moab mark]

Dan,
Found out at scouts tonight one of mine neighbors has the 70-200 lense he will let me borrow. So I'll try again and see how it goes.
Mark