Reading mode: Light Dark

Sports: 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS vs 70-200mm f/4.0L

Go to last post
M

m5laser

Leading Member
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, CA
Hi everyone,

When I get my 10D (a month or so), I am planning on doing a lot of sports photography. I will be doing mostly outdoor sports: football and sailing. Neither sport is super fast (in comparison to tennis, for example), so I am hoping that I can get away with a slightly slower lens. I would love the 70-200mm f/2.8L, but certainly can not afford it.

For the time being, I am completely torn between the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and the 70-200mm f/4.0L!

I expect the L to turn out better quality pictures, but I am not sure if I need it or not.
I also am unsure of the advantages of IS in a well lit environment.
  • Does IS do much of anything when you have good light?
  • Would the L make a big difference? Is it worth the extra couple hundred dollars? Or maybe the 75-300 IS is a better buy?
  • If I bought the L, would adding the 1.6x converter affect the lens performance? I will likely go this option.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if I buy the L, then I would have to buy a very cheap ‘small’ lens. Probably the 50mm f/1.8.

I have searched the forum, and found some good posts - but find it difficult to compare the two. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Duncan
 
Duncan, I bought a Sigma 50-500 this week to replace the 75-300IS. I was more than a bit stunned by the difference in the image quality. This is a heavy and rather intimidating lens--until you start taking pictures with it! The front glass is a huge 86mm and it sucks in light like nothing else. Shooting flying birds wide open in cloudy conditions on Friday allowed shutter speeds of 3000th to 6000th of a second. Needless to say camera shake is not an issue.

I posted a couple of samples. Probably 75% of the shots are this good or better. Those are water drops dripping from the single bird by the way! These are 100% crops and untouched otherwise from a 1D.



 
Very nice pictures where did you take them?
Ben Taylor said:
Duncan, I bought a Sigma 50-500 this week to replace the 75-300IS.
I was more than a bit stunned by the difference in the image
quality. This is a heavy and rather intimidating lens--until you
start taking pictures with it! The front glass is a huge 86mm and
it sucks in light like nothing else. Shooting flying birds wide
open in cloudy conditions on Friday allowed shutter speeds of
3000th to 6000th of a second. Needless to say camera shake is
not an issue.

I posted a couple of samples. Probably 75% of the shots are this
good or better. Those are water drops dripping from the single
bird by the way! These are 100% crops and untouched otherwise from
a 1D.



Click to expand...
 
The Sigma 50-500 I'd say is really too slow for sports, the 70-200EX F2.8 would be a better move to get shutter speeds up to stop action, with the 75-300IS, 50-500 and 100-400L IS you'll be running at F5.6 or there abouts when you'll capture the action better at F2.8 even though it maxxes out at 200mm - Just a thought ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

 
Just ordered one for days when I don't need the monster. The big one doesn't work like an F5.6 by the way. I don't quite understand it but it is much faster than I anticipated.
 
Would love to hear (and see) your experiences with the 70-200 Sigma. Just got one and ran a "cereal box" test against Canon's consumer-grade (but well respected) 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM zoom @ 100mm f/5.6 and 8.

All I can say is that now I see why you pay extra for pro glass like the Sigma EX. Outstanding contrast, saturation and, of course, sharpness. Even wide open (2.8) it carved up the Canon zoom at f/8.

I've never used the Canon 70-200/2.8, but if it's better than the Sigma (which it's meant to be, but only slightly - 4.1 vs 3.9 @ Photodo), that's scary!

gL
Ben Taylor said:
Just ordered one for days when I don't need the monster. The big
one doesn't work like an F5.6 by the way. I don't quite understand
it but it is much faster than I anticipated.
Click to expand...
 
Duncan,

If, as you say, you're mostly shooting outdoor sports like football and sailing, and you plan on getting the 1.4x TC, I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/4L. By all accounts, it's as excellent a lens as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (which is what I use), and that extra stop of light will not be an issue outdoors.

IS isn't a big deal with sports - you want to keep the shutter speed high to stop the action anyway, around 1/250 - 1/500 for typical sports.

The 75-300mm IS isn't a bad lens, but the 70-200/4L and the 1.4x TC will gave you about the same reach with better results, IMHO.

BTW, I use the 100-400mm L IS for soccer/lacrosse/etc. - plenty of shutter speed even at f5.6, so you certainly don't need the f2.8 version for your sports.

HTH,
Mohit
 
You may want to consider the faster lense if you will be filtering (polarize) for sailing.
Mohit said:
Duncan,

If, as you say, you're mostly shooting outdoor sports like football
and sailing, and you plan on getting the 1.4x TC, I'd recommend the
70-200mm f/4L. By all accounts, it's as excellent a lens as the
70-200 f/2.8L IS (which is what I use), and that extra stop of
light will not be an issue outdoors.

IS isn't a big deal with sports - you want to keep the shutter
speed high to stop the action anyway, around 1/250 - 1/500 for
typical sports.

The 75-300mm IS isn't a bad lens, but the 70-200/4L and the 1.4x TC
will gave you about the same reach with better results, IMHO.

BTW, I use the 100-400mm L IS for soccer/lacrosse/etc. - plenty of
shutter speed even at f5.6, so you certainly don't need the f2.8
version for your sports.

HTH,
Mohit
Click to expand...
 
Hi Adam,

I will probably get a polarizing filter for the water actually. Why would that need the faster lens?

Thanks for all the great advice!

Duncan
AdamB said:
Mohit said:
Duncan,

If, as you say, you're mostly shooting outdoor sports like football
and sailing, and you plan on getting the 1.4x TC, I'd recommend the
70-200mm f/4L. By all accounts, it's as excellent a lens as the
70-200 f/2.8L IS (which is what I use), and that extra stop of
light will not be an issue outdoors.

IS isn't a big deal with sports - you want to keep the shutter
speed high to stop the action anyway, around 1/250 - 1/500 for
typical sports.

The 75-300mm IS isn't a bad lens, but the 70-200/4L and the 1.4x TC
will gave you about the same reach with better results, IMHO.

BTW, I use the 100-400mm L IS for soccer/lacrosse/etc. - plenty of
shutter speed even at f5.6, so you certainly don't need the f2.8
version for your sports.

HTH,
Mohit
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Depending on the amount of polarizing you will use, you will lose 1-2 stops (the filter will alow less light through). I found that when shooting sailing (racing) I am typically zoomed all the way (just because it is hard to get close to the action) plus the unstable platform of standing on a boat plus the loss of light from the polarizer, all combine to require a fairly fast lens.
Adam
M5Laser said:
I will probably get a polarizing filter for the water actually. Why
would that need the faster lens?

Thanks for all the great advice!

Duncan
AdamB said:
Mohit said:
Duncan,

If, as you say, you're mostly shooting outdoor sports like football
and sailing, and you plan on getting the 1.4x TC, I'd recommend the
70-200mm f/4L. By all accounts, it's as excellent a lens as the
70-200 f/2.8L IS (which is what I use), and that extra stop of
light will not be an issue outdoors.

IS isn't a big deal with sports - you want to keep the shutter
speed high to stop the action anyway, around 1/250 - 1/500 for
typical sports.

The 75-300mm IS isn't a bad lens, but the 70-200/4L and the 1.4x TC
will gave you about the same reach with better results, IMHO.

BTW, I use the 100-400mm L IS for soccer/lacrosse/etc. - plenty of
shutter speed even at f5.6, so you certainly don't need the f2.8
version for your sports.

HTH,
Mohit
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh OK that makes more sense! Maybe I will avoid using the filter unless it is really bright out.

If I couldn’t afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L, would you still recommend the 70-200mm f/4.0L?

I think I have finally made a decision!

Thanks

Duncan
AdamB said:
M5Laser said:
I will probably get a polarizing filter for the water actually. Why
would that need the faster lens?

Thanks for all the great advice!

Duncan
AdamB said:
Mohit said:
Duncan,

If, as you say, you're mostly shooting outdoor sports like football
and sailing, and you plan on getting the 1.4x TC, I'd recommend the
70-200mm f/4L. By all accounts, it's as excellent a lens as the
70-200 f/2.8L IS (which is what I use), and that extra stop of
light will not be an issue outdoors.

IS isn't a big deal with sports - you want to keep the shutter
speed high to stop the action anyway, around 1/250 - 1/500 for
typical sports.

The 75-300mm IS isn't a bad lens, but the 70-200/4L and the 1.4x TC
will gave you about the same reach with better results, IMHO.

BTW, I use the 100-400mm L IS for soccer/lacrosse/etc. - plenty of
shutter speed even at f5.6, so you certainly don't need the f2.8
version for your sports.

HTH,
Mohit
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
slow by bringing your camera and any lens you have to the locations that you will be shoting and under the same conditions you will be shooting and set you lens at f6.3 to determine what shutter speed you can get. Remember you can always bump your iso up to 200 or 400 but you will want a shutter speed of at least 500+ when usign the 50-500 at full zoom. I don;t have one and never used one but am giving it serious consideration due to its incredible zoom range. f6.3 btw is only 1/3 stop slower than Canon's 100-400Lf5.6 and f5.6 is only 1 stop slower than Canon's 70-200Lf4. I have a 70-200Lf2.8 but 200mm is a far cry from 500mm.

Jim

http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
 
anything else, get the 70-200L f/4

I have the 75-300 and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Speed is NOT one of the 75-300's attributes. Either is sharpness between 200-300mm, probably get as good a result uprezzing an image from the 70-200L.

-- Lew
M5Laser said:
Hi everyone,

When I get my 10D (a month or so), I am planning on doing a lot of
sports photography. I will be doing mostly outdoor sports: football
and sailing. Neither sport is super fast (in comparison to tennis,
for example), so I am hoping that I can get away with a slightly
slower lens. I would love the 70-200mm f/2.8L, but certainly can
not afford it.

For the time being, I am completely torn between the 75-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 IS and the 70-200mm f/4.0L!
I expect the L to turn out better quality pictures, but I am not
sure if I need it or not.
I also am unsure of the advantages of IS in a well lit environment.
  • Does IS do much of anything when you have good light?
  • Would the L make a big difference? Is it worth the extra couple
hundred dollars? Or maybe the 75-300 IS is a better buy?
  • If I bought the L, would adding the 1.6x converter affect the
lens performance? I will likely go this option.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if I buy the L, then I would
have to buy a very cheap ‘small’ lens. Probably the 50mm f/1.8.

I have searched the forum, and found some good posts - but find it
difficult to compare the two. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated!

Thanks!

Duncan
Click to expand...
--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.
 
Having worked in a professional camera store and being able to

"borrow" lenses for the occasional weekend...I once tried out the 50-500 Sigma. While I did manage to capture several sellable photo's...It was hard to get high quality images. Usinga tripod, and all the tricks to maintain sharp images, I found it a difficult lense to use - mostly due to lack of IS. At these long focal lengths, you simply have to have wither very fast shutter speeds, or IS. If it's cloudy out, forget the 100 ISO, or even 200, you won't get fast enough shutter speeds for acceptable images. I used this lens with a EOS 3, and provia film. OFten pushed to 200. It's a good lens overall, and the price is hard to beat (under $700) but it just wasn't the right lens for me. I ended up with Canon 100-400 L IS...and love it. L glass is indeed superior.

Just my .02
 
I shot some indoor sports (well lit gym) using my Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and found the image quality to be too soft with the aperture wide open. Also, I got the impression that you wouldn't want a smaller aperture, so I, personally, wouldn't consider an f/4 lens for this application.

I bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (haven't used it for sports yet). This lens is just amazing - I'll leave it at that. However, before I made the decision to spend vast amounts of cash on one of the best telephoto zooms that money can buy I was considering/planning on getting the job done with one or two good (fast/sharp) prime lenses. This would allow me to shoot with apertures of 2 to 2.8 and they would be damn sharp.

So, if you really DON'T want to spend a lot of money - get a prime (or two primes if you can), otherwise afford the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L (or a zoom that is on par with this lens). Actually, the primes would STILL be better than the Canon, you just give up the convenience of zooming.

hope that helps...

-David
M5Laser said:
Hi everyone,

When I get my 10D (a month or so), I am planning on doing a lot of
sports photography. I will be doing mostly outdoor sports: football
and sailing. Neither sport is super fast (in comparison to tennis,
for example), so I am hoping that I can get away with a slightly
slower lens. I would love the 70-200mm f/2.8L, but certainly can
not afford it.

For the time being, I am completely torn between the 75-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 IS and the 70-200mm f/4.0L!
I expect the L to turn out better quality pictures, but I am not
sure if I need it or not.
I also am unsure of the advantages of IS in a well lit environment.
  • Does IS do much of anything when you have good light?
  • Would the L make a big difference? Is it worth the extra couple
hundred dollars? Or maybe the 75-300 IS is a better buy?
  • If I bought the L, would adding the 1.6x converter affect the
lens performance? I will likely go this option.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if I buy the L, then I would
have to buy a very cheap ‘small’ lens. Probably the 50mm f/1.8.

I have searched the forum, and found some good posts - but find it
difficult to compare the two. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated!

Thanks!

Duncan
Click to expand...
 
I thought I read that you were shooting indoor sports.... disregard my two cents worth :-O
David Straight said:
I bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (haven't used it for sports
yet). This lens is just amazing - I'll leave it at that.
However, before I made the decision to spend vast amounts of cash
on one of the best telephoto zooms that money can buy I was
considering/planning on getting the job done with one or two good
(fast/sharp) prime lenses. This would allow me to shoot with
apertures of 2 to 2.8 and they would be damn sharp.

So, if you really DON'T want to spend a lot of money - get a prime
(or two primes if you can), otherwise afford the Canon 70-200 f/2.8
L (or a zoom that is on par with this lens). Actually, the primes
would STILL be better than the Canon, you just give up the
convenience of zooming.

hope that helps...

-David
M5Laser said:
Hi everyone,

When I get my 10D (a month or so), I am planning on doing a lot of
sports photography. I will be doing mostly outdoor sports: football
and sailing. Neither sport is super fast (in comparison to tennis,
for example), so I am hoping that I can get away with a slightly
slower lens. I would love the 70-200mm f/2.8L, but certainly can
not afford it.

For the time being, I am completely torn between the 75-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 IS and the 70-200mm f/4.0L!
I expect the L to turn out better quality pictures, but I am not
sure if I need it or not.
I also am unsure of the advantages of IS in a well lit environment.
  • Does IS do much of anything when you have good light?
  • Would the L make a big difference? Is it worth the extra couple
hundred dollars? Or maybe the 75-300 IS is a better buy?
  • If I bought the L, would adding the 1.6x converter affect the
lens performance? I will likely go this option.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if I buy the L, then I would
have to buy a very cheap ‘small’ lens. Probably the 50mm f/1.8.

I have searched the forum, and found some good posts - but find it
difficult to compare the two. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated!

Thanks!

Duncan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Guys

David, thanks for the advice anyways! ;)

Jim, I will probably be doing indoor shooting too, but not with a big lens. I might just save some money and but the 50mm f1.8 for indoor shots. Although I am a big fan of zooming, I have heard a lot of good things about the 50.

For the time being, I will be putting most of my money on the outdoor lens. By the time I get the f4, I doubt I will even have enough money left over for the teleconverter! :)

Thanks again

Duncan
jim kelly said:
while the poster intends to shoot outdoors I have no doubt that he
will be shooting indoors from time to time and it is good to know
now that the 50-500 and the f4 canon are not indoor lenses.

Jim

http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
http://users.erols.com/jamesgkelly/photos/c2100uz.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top