Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS ii ?

Messages
1
Name
Ian Randall
Edit My Images
Yes
HI all,
Newbie here.

I've been doing a lot of amateur footy photography and am looking at the canon 70-200 L 2.8 ii... or is the mark one version just as good.
Any recommendations please, especially low lighting level photography & up to 3/400 zoom.
Cheers
 
I use the Mk1 non IS for non league football. I have no complaints at all about the quality of images it gives.
My Flickr is full of games I have covered using this lens.
Bear in mind most of the night games are shot under poor floodlighting with an ISO of 10000 using a Camon 70D
 
The mkII version is an improvement over the mkI, but it does carry a price with it. There are lots of people with the mkI that are very happy with it and haven't had the itchy feeling to upgrade :)

Really depends on money - how much can you afford to spend, how much do you want to spend and I suppose are you happy having 2nd hand.
 
The MkII is noticeably better when detail is required (portraits, weddings, certain wildlife subjects etc.) but I'm not sure that you'll see any real difference for field sports in poorer light as the PP noise reduction will equal things out very quickly. The MkII does seem to take an Extender better than the MkI....maybe the only benefit of which you'll be aware.

Bob
 
Any recommendations please, especially ... up to 3/400 zoom.
Cheers
Tricky.

You'll appreciate that having an f/2.8 lens is very valuable in terms of background blur as well as light gathering. Trouble is, there's a sort of law of physics and economics which says that the size, weight and cost of lenses increases hugely once you go longer than 200mm at f/2.8.

The reason is because your lens has a 77mm front element, and that's a sort of sweet spot for professional lenses. They're relatively easy to construct and there are economies of scale. But a 77mm front element limits you to 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, or 400mm f/5.6.

You could get a 300mm or 400mm zoom within these constraints. For example Canon users have a 100-400mm and Nikon users have an 80-400mm. But they're both f/5.6 at the 400mm end which is definitely not ideal.

Apart from that, you're looking at lenses which are much bigger, heavier and more expensive. The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is a good lens and may be worth considering. But most sports pros would use a 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 prime for football.
 
200mm will probably be too short, especially on full frame

on a 7d it would be good though


look into the non IS version, as you won't need IS for what you do and the mk1 non IS version is better than the IS version
 
look into the non IS version, as you won't need IS for what you do and the mk1 non IS version is better than the IS version

i'm not sure about that iv'e had the mk1 is and non is version and to be honest in day to day use i didn't see any improvement in image quality from one to the other but having IS can be an advantage in some circumstances

if the money is available buy the MK2 there is a marked improvement all round over the MK1 ( IS and non IS ) version and the chances are you will upgrade to it any way some time in the future
 
I love my lens. Used to have the non is version and traded it in... Brilliant lens. Used it for sport and my current ARPS project, which is also based on moving subjects... Love it. If you have the money, go for it!
 
Back
Top