# Best sports lenses for Canon 7D



## RocklandDragon (Mar 20, 2013)

I plan on getting a 70-200 f/2.8 USM IS II lens for my 7D and I want to use it for capturing American football games in the fall. I think this lens can handle the games and the 70-200 lens has looked great on 7D videos on Youtube. I wonder though if I should invest in another lens too. Im still getting the 70-200 but I might want to take pics of the whole stadium and the surroundings. The high school stadiums in Texas can be wide open and there are some wonderful sunsets that can be even more spectacular when there is a partly cloudy sky. Palm trees in the Valley. Mountais in El Paso. Endless sky in The Plains of West Texas and lush trees in East Texas as well as the urban landscape of Dallas area games. Would it be wise to get a smaller lens--like a 24-70 or a set prime lens? Also, I hear these lenses are also great for video on a 7D.

Also, the 70-200 f/4 lens is signifigantly cheaper. I could be able to swing that lens in a month. Would it be wise to get it and use it for daytime settings and baseball games? Like I said, I'd still get the 2.8 but the 70-200 f/4 looks to be a good set of glass.

One more question. Anyone got any takes on the 28-300mm L f3.5-5.6 lens? I havent seen too many reviews or vids on it. Is this lens real good for sports?

Thanks for your feedback. Still learning the 7D but so far so good.

8)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> I plan on getting a 70-200 f/2.8 USM IS II lens for my 7D and I want to use it for capturing American football games in the fall. I think this lens can handle the games and the 70-200 lens has looked great on 7D videos on Youtube. I wonder though if I should invest in another lens too. Im still getting the 70-200 but I might want to take pics of the whole stadium and the surroundings. The high school stadiums in Texas can be wide open and there are some wonderful sunsets that can be even more spectacular when there is a partly cloudy sky. Palm trees in the Valley. Mountais in El Paso. Endless sky in The Plains of West Texas and lush trees in East Texas as well as the urban landscape of Dallas area games. Would it be wise to get a smaller lens--like a 24-70 or a set prime lens? Also, I hear these lenses are also great for video on a 7D.
> 
> Also, the 70-200 f/4 lens is signifigantly cheaper. I could be able to swing that lens in a month. Would it be wise to get it and use it for daytime settings and baseball games? Like I said, I'd still get the 2.8 but the 70-200 f/4 looks to be a good set of glass.
> 
> ...


Your decision to get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is perfect, do not sway from it, even if the f/4 version is tempting (unless budget is an issue).
For "wide open" areas and to "take pics of the whole stadium and the surroundings" get Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and/or EF-S 10-22mm lens
I have used 28-300 L only once for about 20 minutes (that too over 3 years ago when I considered it for my 7D), if I remember correctly it was quite heavy lens, slow aperture (not good for low light) & not wide enough on a crop sensor DSLR like the 7D.


----------



## BruinBear (Mar 20, 2013)

Definitely get the 70-200 2.8 II if you have the money. Amazing lens and if you ever need more length you can slap on a 2x TC, retain AF (F/5.6), not lose too much in image quality.

For the wide end +1 to what Rienz said. If the 17-55 canon is too expensive there is the sigma 17-50 2.8 which is a great lens at half the price. I would definitely say 28, even 24 is not wide enough on crop sensor for whole stadium shots.


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 20, 2013)

What Lens do you have now?
For sports the 70-200 2.8 is great. If there are night games you will be happy to have the 2.8 over the f4. You can't push ISO setting like you could if using Full Frame. 
If you want the full stadium I could say the 10-22 is a good choice.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 20, 2013)

Definitely get the 2.8 for night games. At all of the HS football stadiums around here that I shoot at, my setting are usually 1/500 - 1/800, f2.8 and around 10,000 ISO give or take a stop. If I had a slower lens, I would need to drop shutter speed and accept some subject motion blur.


----------



## Brymills (Mar 20, 2013)

If you want to save some money get the 2.8 Non-IS version. You don't need IS for sport.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 20, 2013)

Brymills said:


> If you want to save some money get the 2.8 Non-IS version. You don't need IS for sport.


It is helpful for video, which he seems to mention several times.

Wide at f/2.8 you could go Tokina 11-16, but, I think the 17-55 is probably the right option since it gives you a good zoom range that the 10-22 or 11-16 won't. IS as well


----------



## Brymills (Mar 20, 2013)

Missed the video bit. But then I don't care about video anyway, I must have sub-consciously filtered it out!

Guess it's a trade off? f/4 plus IS for video of f/2.8 for stills. Or save up to get both.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 20, 2013)

No way around it. If you're going to shoot sports, you NEED f/2.8 and you NEED long lenses. For football I take nothing less than two cameras, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, and the 400 f/2.8L I IS. With a 1D4 I was using the 300 f/2.8L I IS more and I still will if I get super close along the sidelines. Either way, I'm always shooting at f/2.8 as well.

With a 7D? Factoring in the reach, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens would probably cover everything for you, except the short end in this case. But, who cares? Just back up. It's a good decision for you and one that you will NOT regret.


----------



## RichM (Mar 20, 2013)

The 7D with a 70-200 2.8 if my primary sports setup. While I'd love to have a 300 or 400 2.8, they are outside my budget. I borrowed a friend's 300 f4 and liked it so much I finally ended up buying one. It provides the extra reach for field sports that I was seeking. It is reasonably fast and very sharp. While the 300 f4 is a bit on the old side, it is still a very good lens. I've even tried it with a 1.4 II extender, and was happy with image quality, but probably not the best sports set up.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 21, 2013)

The 70-200 F4L is still a great lens!



RocklandDragon said:


> I plan on getting a 70-200 f/2.8 USM IS II lens for my 7D and I want to use it for capturing American football games in the fall. I think this lens can handle the games and the 70-200 lens has looked great on 7D videos on Youtube. I wonder though if I should invest in another lens too. Im still getting the 70-200 but I might want to take pics of the whole stadium and the surroundings. The high school stadiums in Texas can be wide open and there are some wonderful sunsets that can be even more spectacular when there is a partly cloudy sky. Palm trees in the Valley. Mountais in El Paso. Endless sky in The Plains of West Texas and lush trees in East Texas as well as the urban landscape of Dallas area games. Would it be wise to get a smaller lens--like a 24-70 or a set prime lens? Also, I hear these lenses are also great for video on a 7D.
> 
> Also, the 70-200 f/4 lens is signifigantly cheaper. I could be able to swing that lens in a month. Would it be wise to get it and use it for daytime settings and baseball games? Like I said, I'd still get the 2.8 but the 70-200 f/4 looks to be a good set of glass.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rockets95 (Mar 21, 2013)

I have both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f/4 IS (wife has now claimed the f/4). I prefer the shallower DOF that the one stop gives you with the f2.8. It really isolates the subject. It is also quite a bit heavier. I also had the 70-300 non L and while I got some nice sharp shots at times, I also got the opposite - some soft images. My 2 cents.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 21, 2013)

70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a great lens now and will be 30-40 years from now. if it's too much money get VI or even Canon IS version. But I'd go sigma before I went f4. At least for sports 70-200 f/2.8 is the best lens to have. Add a 1.4X converter and you are close to 300mm.

Of course you should have other lenses. From fisheye to 800mm there are uses for them all in a sports environment. Which is the 2nd best lens? Definitly a mid range zoom like the 24-70/105. A 300/400mm f2.8 would also be nice but is a bit pricy.

Oh and I recommend a monopod with the 70-200 f2.8, it can get very heavy over time.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 21, 2013)

timmy_650 said:


> What Lens do you have now?
> For sports the 70-200 2.8 is great. If there are night games you will be happy to have the 2.8 over the f4. You can't push ISO setting like you could if using Full Frame.
> If you want the full stadium I could say the 10-22 is a good choice.



The 28-135mm kit lens is what I have.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 21, 2013)

No doubt I'll definitely get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. It sux that I wont be able to get it until July. I wanted to practice with it before then but that's ok. As long as I get it before August, it'll be fine. I was looking at getting the f/4 so I can shoot baseball with it in a month. But I think y'all are right and I bettter be served using that money to save up for a 24-70 or 10-22 lens. 

If I get those three lenses--or just the 70-200mm and 24-70, would I be better off selling the kit lens for a coin and try to get another one or just hold on to it? I could use the kit lens for daytime portraits or just regular shots. To me, the kit lens doesnt seem to suck and gets good daytime photos but I had some trouble with it in night shots on far away subjects. Still, I'd count that towards user error and I can work to get better shots with it.


----------



## jrh (Mar 21, 2013)

Rockets95 said:


> I have both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f/4 IS (wife has now claimed the f/4). I prefer the shallower DOF that the one stop gives you with the f2.8. It really isolates the subject. It is also quite a bit heavier. I also had the 70-300 non L and while I got some nice sharp shots at times, I also got the opposite - some soft images. My 2 cents.



+1 The 70-200 f2.8 is the way to go with the 7D - I have shot over 30k pics of my various kids sports with this combo. Well worth the extra money IMHO. I purchased a 5Dmk3 a few months ago and the 70-200 takes on a whole new meaning with FF, it will be a lens that will last you a long time and is very versatile.


----------



## acaurora (Mar 21, 2013)

Another 7D+ 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II user here. I take photos for bicycle races in Northern California, and have to agree this is a great combination. One thing I would change though if I were to do it all over again - get the non IS version. I rarely have IS on while taking pictures since I am static and there is no real movement from me other than my hands - and for me just controlling breathing and knowing when to press the shutter is all I need. I have only really had the IS on when I am taking pictures from out of a car that is in front of the bike racers. I also agree to try several other lenses, such as the aforementioned fisheyes or super telephotos. 

Use a lens rental service such as BorrowLenses. That will help you decide which one(s) to buy ... I used them to determine if I wanted a Mk I or Mk II 70-200... I found the Mk I that I borrowed from a friend several times to be a little bit softer and the Mk II to be sharper.


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 21, 2013)

I agree with what has already been mentioned- IS is most worthwhile if you plan on shooting a lot of video. If you're looking primarily at lenses for stills, then I have been very happy with the non-IS version. If money was no object, I'd probably consider an upgrade to the v2 IS, but the vast majority of the time, my shutter speed is fast enough to render IS useless. So do bear that in mind when choosing a 70-200. Oh, and the background blur/subject isolation you get at 200/2.8 is awesome, so don't be tempted by the f/4 

As for a shorter lens, the 17-55 is great. If you plan on shooting video, and want IS in your 70-200, then you get IS with that lens, and a 2.8 max aperture. But, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is supposed to be a great lens also. Personally, I have found 17 more than wide enough for most uses- especially sports. I usually use my 70-200 for all the action, and then put on the 17-55 for candids and crowd shots when everything's all said and done. So I don't think a 10-xx lens should be an immediate consideration- 70-200, then a 24-70 or 17-55, and finally an ultra-wide IF you think you really want it.

again, just my 2 cents.


----------



## djurma11 (Mar 21, 2013)

I've used the 70-200 f/4, 2.8, 2.8 IS, and 2.8 IS mk2 on APS-C sensors. The 2.8 II is by far the best lens, especially for football where shutter speed and subject isolation is key. The f/4 is really sharp, but will only be useful in bright daylight situations and the 2.8 II is probably a bit sharper when stopped down. 

In other words, if you have the money, get the 2.8 II. You will not be disappointed.


----------



## mdmphoto (Mar 21, 2013)

I got a deal on ebay for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS "I" a couple of years ago and have never regretted my purchase. I use it on my 7D with always good results- indoors and out- as long as my own mechanics are good. For daylight outdoor sports the canon 70-300 IS (non-L) gives good results. I also use the 17-55 f/2.8 IS- also an ebay deal, for wider shots. Right now I covet the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, and the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. BTW, I also use a kenko 1.4 extender when needed, with good results.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 21, 2013)

If budget is a problem, why not consider the 135mm f2 or 200mm f2.8 primes - not as flexible, but I used to get good crops from my 135L on my old 450D - it's easy to say 70-200 f2.8 IS when it's not your own cash - search around for a local specialist photography shop too, most sell second hand and the 135/200mm primes do sometimes come up for sale.


----------



## CanNotYet (Mar 21, 2013)

You could also take a look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. IT has gotten really good reviews and is at 1500$ a lot cheaper than the Canon.

Oh, and it is also black.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 21, 2013)

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550. What'd y'all think? Is that a good deal? I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting. I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....


----------



## djurma11 (Mar 21, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550. What'd y'all think? Is that a good deal? I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting. I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.
> 
> Hmmm....


That sounds a little too good to be true, but it's a great deal. the 70-200 f/4 usually goes for about that much. I would definitely check the lens for any defects, especially the glass inside and out, but I would jump on that.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550. What'd y'all think? Is that a good deal? I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting. I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.
> 
> Hmmm....


The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> RocklandDragon said:
> 
> 
> > A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550. What'd y'all think? Is that a good deal? I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting. I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.
> ...


you're mixing up your apertures 

I agree that if it really is a 2.8, that seems too good to be true... even used from B+H, the 2.8 non-is usually goes for around $1000. ish. If you can really get one in good shape for $550, I will be very jealous.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 22, 2013)

Oh, darn. I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame. :-[ I contacted the seller and it was f/4. My fault on that one.



bseitz234 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > RocklandDragon said:
> ...


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 22, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> Oh, darn. I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame. :-[ I contacted the seller and it was f/4. My fault on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



probably just as well... if it had been a 2.8 for that money, I probably would have found the seller, and called them, and bought it out from under you


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > RocklandDragon said:
> ...


Ooops :-[ my bad ... some reason I read it as f/4 ... looks like I need a new pair of glasses. But, if it really is an f/2.8, in good condition and selling for $550, just go for it before it is gone.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> Oh, darn. I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame. :-[ I contacted the seller and it was f/4. My fault on that one.


Man I really need some new pair of glasses ... I did not read your above comment before I commented earlier. :-[ ... sure is a day of embarrassments.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


 
I picked up one for $300 last year along with a ton of other stuff for give away prices. The lens had been sitting in its box for 7 years, and could not be told from new. The owner listed it on Craigslist, and still had his purchase receipts. He then showed me all the other stuff he planned to list and named prices. I bought it all. He had used film up until eight or nine years ago, then bought a point and shoot, and liked that. He was in his 70's, and did not want to deal with heavy equipment.

Deals like that just don't happen very often, once every several years.


----------



## greger (Mar 24, 2013)

Go for the 2.8 IS USM ll. Until it came out the F4 IS USM was a newer lens and a better choice for sharp pics. They now have the same close focus distance. 3.94 ft. and the 2.8 is supposed to be as sharp as the F4 and may be sharper? If that's possible.
With my 2X extender I wish I had the 2.8 ll. I'll just have to try harder and work harder for my pics that I want to take. 
Good Luck!


----------



## RuneL (Mar 24, 2013)

What kind of sport?

Soccer? 400MM 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 (need two bodies really and probably 1D's)


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 25, 2013)

RuneL said:


> What kind of sport?
> 
> Soccer? 400MM 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 (need two bodies really and probably 1D's)



American football. 

I'm going to rent the non IS version in a few weeks (barring some unexpected expense that ruins my plans--that would suck) and see if the video will shake like a leaf in a windstorm. Most reviews I read say the non IS is good for sports since the action is moving and IS may not be needed for shots. I believe some here have said the same thing, so I'll try out the non IS. If it's good, then I could use the near grand I save towards a 24-70 or 17-55 lens for wide shots and video.


----------



## skitron (Mar 25, 2013)

Another lens to consider is the 200mm f/2.8 L if you can do without the zoom on your long lens. It is as good as the 70-200 IS2 long end, very light weight and compact comparitively speaking, mint used for about $500. I actually have both of these lenses...bought the 70-200 IS2 new and bought a mint 200 f/2.8 for $460. It's very difficult to tell them apart when doing comparison shots.

Nice thing is it would get you into a very good longer lens for not much $ if you buy used and you can always turn it for what you paid if/when you want to go for the 70-200 IS2.

The 70-200 IS2 is a fantastic lens but that thing is a boat anchor, so there is a certain desireableness to the compactness and light weight of the 200 f/2.8 that keeps it around here despite the redundancy "shot-wise", especially given not much $ tied up in it.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2013)

Come on..... It's football!!!!! Go Long! Go Wide!

Lots of comments above about long.... great for the players..... but if you really want to capture the feel of the stadium, try out the 10-20.... and even with it you may need to stitch a few shots together to really capture it.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Apr 8, 2013)

I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.

Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 8, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.
> 
> Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.



keep an eye on the refurbs- the 70-200 2.8 non-IS had been in stock for a while, apparently now is sold out, but it may come back before May. Great way to stretch your budget a little further. 10-22 and 17-55 IS are both in stock if you want to get a wide lens now...


----------



## RocklandDragon (Apr 12, 2013)

Best Buy still has some non-IS versions of the lens on their website and they are selling for $1349. Although, a seller on Craigslist in Texas is selling one for $900. She took pictures of the lens and it looks fine. Looks legitimate and since I would be meeting the person to buy the lens, I could test it out and see if everything is functional. It's tempting because $400+ dollars savings before tax is a lot of savings (albeit with no warranty and lens is used of course). She lives quite far from where I'm at in Texas but I'll be visiting San Antonio next week and where she is at isnt long from San Antonio. Might be to only chance I can get it. 

Any of y'all (yes y'all 8) ;D ) buy lenses from Craigslist before?



bseitz234 said:


> RocklandDragon said:
> 
> 
> > I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.
> ...


----------

