Reading mode: Light Dark

How to compare lenses?

Go to last post
M

Mpls Funk

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Hi all -

I have the Canon 55-250 IS lens and use it to shoot indoor sports. That presents challenges of course. I'm wondering how I can better compare/understand the performance improvement I would get by going to the Canon 70-200 f/4 or the 70-200 f/2.8...or even the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8?

In other words...let's say right now the best I can do with my lens is 1/200 of a second. But I'm still getting motion blur. If I had the 70-200 f/4, how much faster would I be able to shoot (shutter speed) and get equivalent light/exposure? It looks like you can buy used 70-200 f/4 for about $400, but the f/2.8 is quite a bit more expensive. So I'm trying to decide if the $400 gives me a significant improvement, or if I need to go to the f/2.8 (which I probably can't afford). And likewise, how to compare the Tamron f/2.8 to the Canon f/2.8

I hope this question makes sense!
 
Mpls Funk said:
Hi all -

I have the Canon 55-250 IS lens and use it to shoot indoor sports. That presents challenges of course. I'm wondering how I can better compare/understand the performance improvement I would get by going to the Canon 70-200 f/4 or the 70-200 f/2.8...or even the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8?

In other words...let's say right now the best I can do with my lens is 1/200 of a second. But I'm still getting motion blur. If I had the 70-200 f/4, how much faster would I be able to shoot (shutter speed) and get equivalent light/exposure? It looks like you can buy used 70-200 f/4 for about $400, but the f/2.8 is quite a bit more expensive. So I'm trying to decide if the $400 gives me a significant improvement, or if I need to go to the f/2.8 (which I probably can't afford). And likewise, how to compare the Tamron f/2.8 to the Canon f/2.8

I hope this question makes sense!
Click to expand...
Yes, it makes sense. Since you're talking about motion blur from sports and not from being handheld (I assume, because of the indoor sports part of it). You can not worry about the IS portion of it. Every stop you gain in aperture will give you double the shutter speed.

So, your 55-250 is f5.6 at 200mm I believe. That means f4 would be one stop brighter and f2.8 would be one more stop brighter. So, if you're getting 1/200s shutter speeds at f5.6, you will get 1/400s shutter speeds at f4 and 1/800s shutter speeds at f2.8 (all other things being equal of course)

The 55-250 STM is a great lens, but indoor sports is definitely not it's shining area. Most people would consider 70-200 f2.8 the minimum for indoor sports and would either go with that or fast primes to get even better shutter speeds. Examples would be the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 or 135mm f2L.

Good luck!
 
So let's assume the 55-250 has a minimum aperture of 5.6 at 200mm; the 70-200 f4 would only give you one stop of light, the 2.8 two stops of light. The camera you are using might make a bigger difference.
 
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
 
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
 
diness said:
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
Click to expand...
My hope is to one day get a 7d mk ii. But I can't afford it. So, I might make a baby step and go 70D...but can't really afford that right now either. Trying to find some way to upgrade for $400-$500 at the most. Thinking of the Canon 70-200 f/4...but trying to figure out if it will get me enough improvement to be worth it, or if I'm really just stuck until I can spend more significant money ($1000 +).
 
Mpls Funk said:
diness said:
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
Click to expand...
My hope is to one day get a 7d mk ii. But I can't afford it. So, I might make a baby step and go 70D...but can't really afford that right now either. Trying to find some way to upgrade for $400-$500 at the most. Thinking of the Canon 70-200 f/4...but trying to figure out if it will get me enough improvement to be worth it, or if I'm really just stuck until I can spend more significant money ($1000 +).
Click to expand...
These guys have it covered, but to be even more specific

1/200 @200mm @f5.6 == 1/400 @200mm @f4 == 1/800 @200mm @f2.8, same exposures given the same ISO, the issue is that you get less depth of field, so the images won't be the same, but that's often desirable anyway. Make sense?

Options.

70-200 f4 L

70-200 f2.8 L used

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Tamron 70-200 f2.8

Canon 100mm f2

Canon 135mm f2 L

Canon 200mm f2.8 L

The L lenses are going to be more than 500$, moving to a 6D or used 5D3 would work but cost more, as your lens won't work on those, so you are really into 1500-2000$ worth of upgrade.
 
Hi Kieth,

Makes perfect sense - thank you. In another thread on this forum, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 did not get great reviews/comments. Seems focusing is quite slow and not super accurate, etc. So I am leaning to Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). There is one for sale locally (used) for $400...might help. I don't think I want to jump to full frame...just over-all much more expensive.
 
Mpls Funk said:
diness said:
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
Click to expand...
My hope is to one day get a 7d mk ii. But I can't afford it. So, I might make a baby step and go 70D...but can't really afford that right now either. Trying to find some way to upgrade for $400-$500 at the most. Thinking of the Canon 70-200 f/4...but trying to figure out if it will get me enough improvement to be worth it, or if I'm really just stuck until I can spend more significant money ($1000 +).
Click to expand...
The outstanding 200/2.8LII is $749 brand new. I am guessing you could come pretty close to $500 used or refurb. Yes, you are stuck at one focal length but you are getting a full 2 stops plus an outstanding overall lens with many other uses (it's a great portrait lens and good for candid shots too).
 
gimp_dad said:
Mpls Funk said:
diness said:
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
Click to expand...
My hope is to one day get a 7d mk ii. But I can't afford it. So, I might make a baby step and go 70D...but can't really afford that right now either. Trying to find some way to upgrade for $400-$500 at the most. Thinking of the Canon 70-200 f/4...but trying to figure out if it will get me enough improvement to be worth it, or if I'm really just stuck until I can spend more significant money ($1000 +).
Click to expand...
The outstanding 200/2.8LII is $749 brand new. I am guessing you could come pretty close to $500 used or refurb. Yes, you are stuck at one focal length but you are getting a full 2 stops plus an outstanding overall lens with many other uses (it's a great portrait lens and good for candid shots too).
Click to expand...
Interesting - is that a Canon or Tamron or other? (sorry). Thanks!!
 
Mpls Funk said:
gimp_dad said:
Mpls Funk said:
diness said:
Mpls Funk said:
Thanks guys...I am using Canon T2i. Typically at 1600 ISO...I find 3200 tends to start getting grainy.
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a t2i and my experience was similar. Even if you updated your camera, you are still going to want a faster lens than the 55-250 for indoor sports. An 80d would get you better ISO performance, but of course the big jump would be to full frame. That is a big price jump too, especially when you add lenses into the picture. When I jumped from a t2i to a full frame 6d, the difference in high isos was amazing. I can now easily use 6400.
Click to expand...
My hope is to one day get a 7d mk ii. But I can't afford it. So, I might make a baby step and go 70D...but can't really afford that right now either. Trying to find some way to upgrade for $400-$500 at the most. Thinking of the Canon 70-200 f/4...but trying to figure out if it will get me enough improvement to be worth it, or if I'm really just stuck until I can spend more significant money ($1000 +).
Click to expand...
The outstanding 200/2.8LII is $749 brand new. I am guessing you could come pretty close to $500 used or refurb. Yes, you are stuck at one focal length but you are getting a full 2 stops plus an outstanding overall lens with many other uses (it's a great portrait lens and good for candid shots too).
Click to expand...
Interesting - is that a Canon or Tamron or other? (sorry). Thanks!!
Click to expand...
It's a Canon L series lens. AF is very fast, image quality is sharp with great contrast and nice bokeh. It's a good indoor action lens if you can tolerate the fact that it is a prime.
 
You could do a bit of noise processing, I tried it once with my old 30D and it did wonders at ISO 1600, whereas I wouldn't normally go beyond ISO 800. Getting the exposure right is still key.
 
You generally want to shoot sports at 1/500th sec. or faster. I've found the 70-200 f/2.8 an absolutely key lens for shooting everything from tennis to football to baseball to basketball and more. I'm just about always shooting wide open, sometimes in truly awful light. I'd advise skipping the compromise lenses and get a lens that is fast enough to handle the situation. Even Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is a marvelous lens.









--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/
 
Last edited:
Mpls Funk said:
Hi Kieth,

Makes perfect sense - thank you. In another thread on this forum, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 did not get great reviews/comments. Seems focusing is quite slow and not super accurate, etc. So I am leaning to Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). There is one for sale locally (used) for $400...might help. I don't think I want to jump to full frame...just over-all much more expensive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the initial sticker shock of the body can be daunting. The lenses are not all that more expensive though, to be honest, so it's really about the body.

I like the 70-200 f4L, hard to beat for the money. It gets bashed a bit because the IS version is better, but it's also a lot more expensive. Here are a few portraits that I've shot with the 70-200 f4L.

www.flickr.com

70-200 f4L SUCKS

Explore this photo album by Keith Leonard on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Either get a 7D II or invest in a second hand lens with a larger aperture lens like these great lenses: 135L f/2, 200L II f/2.8 or a 70-200L f/2.8 non-IS. I would go the lens route first.
 
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