Canon 70-200L 2.8 zoom or 50 1.8 and 200 2.8 prime

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Which would provide better results for sports photos, night games etc.

-- (rh24566ah@peoplepc.com), January 31, 2002

Answers

Of course the 200 f/2.8,for large aperture,fast focus and superior optics,apart from its high price.

-- legnum (legnum212@email.com), January 31, 2002.

Depends what sports you are covering. I prefer the 70-200L personally.

-- Jake F (JakeF@nowhere.net), January 31, 2002.

if you want to stop action and want fast focus (if you didn't get the 70-200, which is the obvious choice) i'd go for the 50mm f/1.4 for the USM motor that the 50mm f/1.8 doesn't have. the 50mm f/1.0 if you really need to stop action. i frequently use a fast 50mm for basketball games in order to freeze the action. you should probably stay away from primes (unless you have a set mounted on different bodies) for sports because they are restricting and don't give you the freedom that zooms have.

one more thing, i'm pretty sure (but not completely) that the 70-200L will give better image quality than the 50 f/1.8.

Good luck.

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.


I have all three, but for sports, the 70-200/2.8 would be my first choice. The usually unpredictable nature of sports, would make me favour the zoom.

I don't think that there is a significant difference between the quality of 50/1.8 and the 70-200/2.8. They are such different lenses, that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I do think the 200/2.8 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8, however. This is based on using the 2X converter on both. The prime images hold up very well, while the zoom seems a bit soft by comparison. Without the converter, I don't think I would have a preference.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), February 01, 2002.


I've only shot sports once recently - a hockey game, shot from one of the benches (near center ice). I had the 28-135 and 100-300 consumer zooms with me. Neither one was ideal - the 28-135 was too short for action at the far ends, while the 100-300 wasn't short enough unless the players were at the far ends. The 70-200 would have been perfect, but I don't have one (I might rent one if I'm in the same situation again). Based on that experience, and on trying to shoot a football game many years ago with a 50/1.8 and a 2x TC, I wouldn't try this with primes if I had an appropriate zoom available - there's no time for swapping lenses, so you either need a second body or you need to accept that you're going to have to shoot with one lens that's wide enough to cover the widest shot you need and you'll just have to crop and enlarge the rest.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), February 01, 2002.


The AF on the 50 f1.8 II, is noisy, but reasonably fast. Should be fine for sports.

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), February 01, 2002.

Thanks for all the response, seems the majority is the 70-200L, I have found one for $950 used near my home, only can't tell how old or if there are any concerns with it.

I've seen the same lense new at Adorama for maybe 150 more, I believe Adorama is hte way I'll go, thanks for the input.

-- (rh24566ah@peoplepc.com), February 01, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ