# 70-200 f/4 vs. 200 f/2.8



## grey4 (Oct 3, 2012)

I have about 800 $ to spend on a longer lens. Currently my longest lens is the 85 f/1.8. I shoot Division 1 college athletics (football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, hockey). My 85 is great and the AF on my 7d is really treating me well i just need something longer for football and soccer. My two options are the 200 f/2.8 prime or the 70-200 f/4 zoom. What do you think?


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Oct 4, 2012)

Do you think you could stretch your budget for an f/4 IS? Or an f/2.8 without IS? 
Because those two are are amazing lenses.
I'm not sure about the 200 f/2.8, but I know that the 70-200 f/4 is a pretty good lens too  Although, you're not going to get anywhere near the light capabilities of your 85 (unfortunately)


----------



## señor Steve (Oct 4, 2012)

I also shoot the 7d and have both the 85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4 non-is. I too recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 non-is. I have shot soccer with it and it works well. You can find a good used one for close to your budget. F/4 frequently is not enough. The 200mm prime is long on a crop camera if you don't have an extra body with your 85mm ready.


----------



## PCM-Madison (Oct 4, 2012)

I shoot action sports regularly. I also own both the 200 f2.8 v1 and the 70-200 f4 IS. In my opinion, the 200 f2.8 is the right choice for sports. F2.8 gives twice the shutter speed to stop action and F2.8 enables superior autofocus on many canon bodies including my 60D. In addition, using both lenses on a tripod, under controlled lighting, on the same subject, the 200 f2.8 lens gives clearly superior image sharpness, resolution, and contrast relative to the 70-200 f4 IS (itself an extremely good lens). I was also able to buy my used copy of the 200 f2.8 v1 for <$400 so you should consider this over the current version. Hope this helps.

Paul


----------



## SJTstudios (Oct 4, 2012)

I'd go for a 70-200 f4, because if you ever need low light, you can just stick on the 85, and crop in later, it just seems like the versatility would help in your case.
Unless, you shoot static subjects like portraits, or you need all the zoom you can get, just get the 200mm.

And I don't mean to be rude, but this is a relatively easy question, unless you haven't decided what path you want to take.

They both are equally as sharp when stopped down, so it is all based on your preference.

I stuck with my 75-300, and got a 100mm macro l.

If you still have a 70/75-300 keep it, and get either a 135 f2 or a sigma 150 2.8.
F4 isn't that much of a change, because a 70-300 at 200 is 4.5

That way, you get a telephoto for distance with good light, and when you need low light, you have an fast lens with good enough quality to crop in on.

I've alway been told, you should get the lens that improve your photography, that is why I got some prime rather than a 70-200. And now, since all I need to get better is some more l glass, that is where I go.
So in finale, get the 200 or the 135 f2. And I don't mean to be rude, but getting a 70-200 f4 as your first lens (after having an 18-55 and 70/75-300) is one of the worst moves. All it does is give you sharper images, rather than getting a prime, which makes you think about your image.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2012)

For sports, the faster the shutter speed, the better. Try to get the f/2.8 non IS and double your shutter speed. I have lept my f/4L due to the weight, and also have owned several each of the f/2.8 versions.
In good light, the f/4 is great, but as the light level dropsyou will be wanting at least f/2.8 and likely faster. Thats where a 135mm f/2 can help. If you do not mind changing lenses, the 135mmL is another option, but a zoom is nice to have for sports.
Here is one I recently took in bright sunlight with the f/4L IS and 5D MK II (It focuses after all  )


----------



## Menace (Oct 15, 2012)

Save up a bit longer and invest in the 70-200 2.8 non IS if you can. The extra stop of light will come very handy.


----------

