I was looking for help if I should look into a new lens.
I mostly shoot sports (my daughter's soccer team).
The lens I currently use is a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens. It was an extra $99 when I bought my camera.
The camera is a Canon XSi.

I have some pictures on my webpage for an idea of what my current photos look like, but I don't know how to point to a direct link.
http://www.theayalas.org/albums/
You can navigate on the left to 2010 --> Babcats Soccer

I was looking at these two lenses:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm.../ref=pd_cp_p_1
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm...9974109&sr=1-1

I was looking for opinions on the 2 lenses (or others) or if I should stick to what I have now. The 70-200 seems like a nicer lens, but doesn't have the same range.
One thing I don't like about mine is the slow AF. It is not USM and does not have IS.

Thanks.
[Reply]

I have the 2.8 and it is all I use to shoot all my kids sporting events. Have I ever been searching for length, sure....but in the end, I'd take the speed and build quality of the 70-200, over the length and IS of the 70-300.

Can you rent locally? Not sure they would have a 70-300 to rent, but sure you could take out a 70-200 and see if you felt like you "needed" the extra length....
[Reply]

Thanks EJ. I've seen a few guys use the 70-200 at the same events. I have only used the 75-300, so I guess I just am a little used to that range.
[Reply]

On your camera's sensor, the 200mm would be equivalent to the field of view of a 320mm lens on a 35mm camera, so lengthwise you should be fine, though you might have to crop a bit and you won't be right in the action for shots across the field. I'm gonna say that if you really want to get into shooting sports photography you'll probably have to upgrade. The 75-300mm is a decent lens as long as there is enough light, but it won't track motion very well or focus very quickly.

I would actually suggest something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200mm...9978866&sr=1-2

The added f-stop will make a huge difference in increasing your shutter speeds so you can stop motion and the narrower depth of field will also increase subject isolation from the background. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L is great as well, but for your purposes, I would say IS is not as important of a factor because you're gonna wanna work with faster shutter speeds anyways in order to stop motion.
[Reply]

the 70-200 is an L lens...which means it is better quality than the 70-300 as far as optics. I would get the 70-200, and if you can afford the extra money I would get the 70-200 2.8 L (non-IS version)
[Reply]

Here is your answer

I have tried the knock off lenses, but none hold a candle to the real thing.

IS is nice if you are shooting a still object at low light, but in action you are trying to stop motion so you will be pretty fast anyway.
[Reply]

The 70-200 lineup is one of THE sharpest lenses in the entire Canon lineup.

I own the f/4 non-IS and it will spoil you in medium to high light applications.

If there's any possibility of lower than optimal lighting, then I'd seriously consider the 70-200 f/2.8. It won't be as sharp as the f/4, but you'll gain some low light capabilities that the f/4 would otherwise require an ISO boost to compensate for.


And as others have stated, since you're shooting action. IS is useless.
[Reply]

What are the "knock off" lenses you're referring to?
[Reply]

Sorry when I refer to Knock Off I am talking of anything that is not Canon brand. I have used the Tamron and Sigma, both are fine lenses but nowhere near as sharp or as fast.
[Reply]

Sigma and Tamron both have fine offerings, but like any brand, including Canon.. also have some not worth the time of day required to even put them on a camera.

Canon L lenses are typically a step above anything else, but there are a few duds in the L lineup.

Point being, never buy anything without researching it first. Regardless of brand.
[Reply]

Ok, well that's a pretty broad statement. There are lenses made by both of those companies that far exceed anything Canon makes in a reasonable equivalent. Granted most of Canon's L lineup is far superior to a lot of third-party lenses, but to group all third-party lenses as crap is wrong. In addition, you're saying all manual focus lenses such as Leicas, Zeiss, Voigtlander and others suck just because they're not made by Canon. Many of these lenses have much better IQ than Canon's but don't have auto-focus.

Also, have you tried any of Sigma, Tokina or others' better lens offerings or just their lower end options? For instance, Sigma's new 50mm f/1.4 is considered by many to be superior to Canon's version. They're also releasing a few highly anticipated lenses such as an 85mm f/1.4 that could potentially be a better option than either of Canon's because of the 85L's slow focusing and the 85 f/1.8's tendency towards chromatic aberration and fringing at times. I'll say for the most part you get what you pay for, whether you buy Sigma, Canon or any other number of brands. I can provide more specific lens examples, but the important thing is to do research on each lens.
[Reply]

Sorry I guess I should have phrased it better.

I owned a Tamron 28-75 for a long time before replacing it.
[Reply]

As always, check www.fredmiranda.com to get a good idea of lens quality.

If the games are during the day, an f4 (70-200) would be fine. Attach a 1.4x teleconverter to that and you have your 300 focal distance and then some.

I do shoot Canon, and the L lens is as good as it gets. You might look into the 100-400 too if you really need the extra reach. All depends on where you're located. Feel free to ask me questions, as Canon lenses is an area I've studied for many years!

FYI- I use a 70-200f4 with 1.4x, a 400 5.6 prime, and a 17-50 2.8 Tamron.
[Reply]

Should also note that with the 1.4x you lose 1 f stop.
[Reply]

Thanks for the help guys.
I'll probably wait until near the end of summer, but so far it looks like the 70-200 4L is a winner. I'll only be using it during the day, so I don't really think I need the 2.8.
[Reply]