# lens decision? 70-200 choices



## dickgrafixstop (Apr 19, 2015)

My son has recently become interested in photography and started to put together his equipment list.
He bought a 5DMkII used but now he wants a telephoto. He asked me to make a recommendation between
a new 70-200 f4.0 L and a used 70-200 f2.8L (not the version II). He looked at the f2.8 and it looks brand
new or at least seldom used and both are priced about the same at $1100. He wants it primarily for youth
soccer games, usually played outside in California sunshine. I advised him to get the new f4.0 because he
didn't need the speed and it was considerably lighter for outdoor non-tripod use. Any comments?


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 19, 2015)

I have the tamron 70-200 sp f2.8. I like it a lot. I do fear trying to do sports with a 5d2 is going to be tough though with its mediocre AF.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 19, 2015)

dickgrafixstop said:


> My son has recently become interested in photography and started to put together his equipment list.
> He bought a 5DMkII used but now he wants a telephoto. He asked me to make a recommendation between
> a new 70-200 f4.0 L and a used 70-200 f2.8L (not the version II). He looked at the f2.8 and it looks brand
> new or at least seldom used and both are priced about the same at $1100. He wants it primarily for youth
> ...



If you have the time, I'd look for a used f/4 IS or a canon refurb on sale. At that price, you won't lose much if he decides to trade it in later. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II that I use for my kids soccer, but the f/4 would work nearly as well. The f/4 will be sharper than the f/2.8 (IS version I or non IS).

5DII doesn't have the best AF, but I used it before getting the 5DIII and it works fine (as long as you use the center point).


----------



## jblake (Apr 19, 2015)

A 70-200 is not long enough for outdoor soccer on a full frame camera. Look at either used 70-300L or a 100-400 mark I. They can both be had used, for around a $1000. It is very frustrating to have to crop almost every single image from a soccer game because of using a lens that is too short for the job.

I would go for the 70-300L, excellent build quality, weather sealing and IS. I have use that lens for Girls High School JV soccer, games were always played in good light, and never regretted it.

I started out with the 5D2, and the 3.9 fps was way too slow for sports; it will do in a pinch though.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 20, 2015)

jblake said:


> A 70-200 is not long enough for outdoor soccer on a full frame camera. Look at either used 70-300L or a 100-400 mark I. They can both be had used, for around a $1000. It is very frustrating to have to crop almost every single image from a soccer game because of using a lens that is too short for the job.
> 
> I would go for the 70-300L, excellent build quality, weather sealing and IS. I have use that lens for Girls High School JV soccer, games were always played in good light, and never regretted it.
> 
> I started out with the 5D2, and the 3.9 fps was way too slow for sports; it will do in a pinch though.



Truth is you are most likely going to crop no matter what lens you use. I frequently shoot sports and use the 1D X with 400 f/2.8 ii, cropping is just part of the job.


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 20, 2015)

I use the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 5D3 for soccer. The focal length works well if you position yourself along the sidelines or near the goal that your team is after -- which is generally good practice for sports. (Tell him to try shooting from his knees or while sitting.)

With shutter speeds around 1/800 - 1/1000, IS isn't needed. I would suggest looking at the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. This lens is a gem and sharper than the Mark I IS version.

The two 70-200 f4 lenses are very sharp and light weight. But, you can get far more pop with f2.8 on a FF body. TheDigitalPicture.com is a good site for reviews and IQ comparisons, such as:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 5D2 isn't a sports body, but not because its slow FPS. The AF system is primitive by today's standards, but may prove to be great training for a new photographer. Don't worry about slow FPS. Even with the 6 FPS of the5D3 (or 8 FPS of the 7D) you will miss a lot of shots if you rely on spray and pray. Timing that first shot will be critical. The limitations of the 5D2 is with tracking moving subjects with a single focus point and without expansion points.

Another reason for the 2.8 lens is that it may help the focus system. I've noticed that my 24-105 f4 seems to lag behind my 2.8 lenses when locking in on the subject. You may still want to shoot at f4.0 or smaller to increase your DOF and give you some wiggle room for focus accuracy. Still, I suspect that a 2.8 lens may help the AF system of the 5d2.

Also, as previously noted, I highly recommend Canon's refurbished store. Stock isn't consistent, but prices are good and Canon stands behind them.


----------



## pwp (Apr 20, 2015)

I concur with the posts suggesting a non-is 70-200 f/2.8. 

If your son wants to shoot sports, there must be a boatload of good pre-owned gripped 7D bodies coming into the market now the 7DII is shipping in large numbers. Prices will be pretty sharp. The AF on a 7D vs a 5DII will be orders of magnitude superior. The extra x1.6 reach on the 7D sensor will make the 70-200 just about viable for sports. Shooting action can be done with a 5DII, but the glacial AF and shallow buffer may disappoint. It may be disheartening for a motivated beginner to shoot soccer with the wrong gear.

You sound like a hands-on Dad. That's great! Two bodies at sports events are handy. If his birthday is coming up soon, that could be 7D time if his current budget doesn't allow.

-pw


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 20, 2015)

pwp said:


> I concur with the posts suggesting a non-is 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> If your son wants to shoot sports, there must be a boatload of good pre-owned gripped 7D bodies coming into the market now the 7DII is shipping in large numbers. Prices will be pretty sharp. The AF on a 7D vs a 5DII will be orders of magnitude superior. The extra x1.6 reach on the 7D sensor will make the 70-200 just about viable for sports. Shooting action can be done with a 5DII, but the glacial AF and shallow buffer may disappoint. It may be disheartening for a motivated beginner to shoot soccer with the wrong gear.
> 
> ...


+1 on the 7D suggestion. It is a nice body for sports and the in-focus keeper rate is likely to be higher than the 5D2. I also agree with two bodies for sports (and events).


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 20, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> I use the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 5D3 for soccer. The focal length works well if you position yourself along the sidelines or near the goal that your team is after -- which is generally good practice for sports. (Tell him to try shooting from his knees or while sitting.)
> 
> With shutter speeds around 1/800 - 1/1000, IS isn't needed. I would suggest looking at the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. This lens is a gem and sharper than the Mark I IS version.
> 
> ...


I agree with these points. A refurbished 70-200/4 IS is a good option and for better reach the 100-400mmL is another good alternative to consider.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 20, 2015)

I have both 70-200 L lenses, F2.8LISII and F4LIS.

F4LIS is my recommendation since your son is shooting a outside sports.
Yes, 200mm is a bit short for such sports, but if you aim for longer lenses, it's getting bigger and heavier.
Those big, heavy lenses (including 70-200F2.8L) are tough to taking out every-day-basis, especially for the person who just started taking photos with DSLR, in this case, your son.

F4LIS is light-weight, very compact, and of course, top-of-the-art description.
Buy it, and bring it everywhere.



May the EOS be with you.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 20, 2015)

maybe it's just me, but didn't the OP mention a new 70-200mmf4 or a used 70-200mmf2.8? everyone here is talking about a 70-200mm f4 IS. perhaps the OP just forgot to add IS to the description since the price is 1100. that or that's one very over priced non IS f4. but then we go and recommend getting a different body., ? hmmm 

i shoot the same stuff you son shoots, plus paid wedding work. I went with the nonIS 2.8 years ago and it's still awesome. actually, at first i went with the 70-200f4 thinking that i would put the difference toward a fast short tele prime, and the two would cover everything in that focal range. but, pretty quickly i realized that for me at least, it wasn't working out. i seemed to need that extra lens weight to help me stabilize my shots. swapped to the 2.8 and everything was good. so the weight to me was a "feature", i probably could have slapped some weights on the f4 and done as well, but that would have just been silly.


----------



## jcarapet (Apr 20, 2015)

All good advice so far. Smart thinking. 70-300 is a very good option if you have enough outdoor light. 70-200 f/4 IS is a smarter option for a kid whose focus might change every five minutes. I own 70-200 2.8 IS II and I love it, but not worth the cost difference over the F/4 and 70-300. It's a situation where he will never know any better if he never tries it. Save the money for other things or his next hobby. 

Personal timeline on hobbies from 12-20 was Go-peds >> raising tropical birds >> auto-restoration >> filmmaking. Glad my parents/my cash from part time jobs never got me too deep into any hobby.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> jblake said:
> 
> 
> > A 70-200 is not long enough for outdoor soccer on a full frame camera. Look at either used 70-300L or a 100-400 mark I. They can both be had used, for around a $1000. It is very frustrating to have to crop almost every single image from a soccer game because of using a lens that is too short for the job.
> ...



Even with 600mm + 2x TC = still cropping ;D


----------



## degos (Apr 23, 2015)

For a fledgling photographer, I'd second the warnings against the f2.8

I had the f2.8 IS Mk I, fantastic photo-making machine... when I actually could be bothered taking it with me. 1.5 kg of metal and glass and such an awkward diameter. Imagine taking a 1.5 litre bottle of water everywhere with you. It'll discourage your son from actually using it and make photography a chore.

Sold it to 'trade-down' to the f4 ( IS, but that doesn't really matter ) and never looked back. Fantastic portability, I take it and a body everywhere and I'm ready for most things that might occur. OK I lose a stop of light, but for many interior venues even f2.8 isn't fast enough; f2 or 1.8 are where it's at and then you're looking at primes.

When he goes pro... by all means the f2.8 or something even faster, crated-up and taken in the back of the van to the next venue.


----------



## Duke5A (Apr 29, 2015)

I own both the 70-200 F2.8L IS and non-IS version; honestly, I don't find them unwieldy at all. I shoot just about every high school sport indoor and out. I started with outdoor sports, but very quickly moved indoor as I chased other sports and wound up very happy I spent the extra cash on the F2.8 version. The additional stop's worth of light makes all the difference in the dungeon lit gyms. If you think your son might branch out then I would get the 2.8.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 29, 2015)

Another vote for the 70-200 f2.8l non-is here.

I find mine starts to really shine around f4, although f2.8 is good.

By the sounds of it you are shooting in good light, so the f4 or f4 is might seem like a good compromise... but all canon dslrs have increased af performance at the central point with f2.8 or faster lenses, regardless of your actual shooting aperture.

I shoot video and so am in the habit of supporting my camera in some way, usually a monopod for the kind of action shots I woukd use this lens for, it coukd be a pain to hand hold all day...


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 6, 2015)

I bought the EF 70-200 f4.0L non IS version mainly because I use the lens exclusively on a tripid (note the tripod collar is a seperate cost) and therefor IS is redundant. The image quality is extremely good the only shortcoming of the cheapest L 70-200 is it doesnt have weather sealing at the mount.


----------



## johnnycash (May 16, 2015)

I would skip the 70-200 f/4 and get either 70-200 f/2.8 or better yet 70-300 f/4-5.6L which is a great, sharp and quite a light lens.


----------



## IglooEater (May 16, 2015)

Just thought I'd throw this in here: by shopping around and waiting a bit, I got a 70-200 2.8 IS II for the equivalent of 1360 USD, I know that's more than your $1100, but if you can stretch it this thing is a beast and handles teleconverters quite nicely. Also got a 2X III for 270usd  either of the other options is great- but I'd personally go with the 2.8 non-is. Good luck!


----------

