[Stu Pitt]

I want to buy a tele zoom for outdoor sports. 200mm might be a bit short on my full frame 6D, but I think I’ll be able to work with it. A good thing about soccer vs basketball is I can walk around the field easier than the basketball gyms my daughter has been playing in. And it’ll be a smaller field for 8 year olds rather than a full field.

The non IS version is at the very top of my budget. Please don’t suggest the IS version, the 2.8 version, 70-300 L, etc. $600 is really a stretch for me here.

Anything else I should consider? There’s the new-ish 70-300 IS USM (non-L) that’s about $200 or so cheaper, and it’s longer. I’d much rather pay the extra $200 and give up the extra reach and IS if the IQ is better. And for what’ll probably end up being 90% of its use, I don’t think IS is going to do much for me anyway.

Opinions? Worthwhile alternatives at $600 max and under? I don’t trust used.

[adydula]

Hi Stu...

Been there have lots of these lens....you get what you pay for....

IQ is the best with the white red line lens....very noticeable when you start photoshopping and printing....

I have take thousands pf soccer photos and with a full frame camera you loose that 1.6 multiplication factor....

It depends on where you are on the field in relation to your subject....of course.

A 300mm F4 is a great lens for soccer....you could get one used ??

Its not too fast, but on a sunny day its a real gem here.

You need to save up and get the right lens it would be well worth it....

Alex

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%201079153.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2tb-2qLx3wIVioTICh2VaAieEAQYASABEgKMrPD_BwE

[thunderbrick]

Not sure one lens will do both well. 

For soccer find a used 70-300 Sigma, for basketball the F4 lens won't be your friend indoors.   

Sit on the floor behind the basket and let the kids run towards you.  Their expressions will be priceless.

I have grandkids.  Been there, done that.

[Stu Pitt]

Hi Stu...

Been there have lots of these lens....you get what you pay for....

IQ is the best with the white red line lens....very noticeable when you start photoshopping and printing....

I have take thousands pf soccer photos and with a full frame camera you loose that 1.6 multiplication factor....

It depends on where you are on the field in relation to your subject....of course.

A 300mm F4 is a great lens for soccer....you could get one used ??

Its not too fast, but on a sunny day its a real gem here.

You need to save up and get the right lens it would be well worth it....

Alex

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%201079153.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2tb-2qLx3wIVioTICh2VaAieEAQYASABEgKMrPD_BwE

I’m about 90% set on the 70-200 f/4 L. I was thinking the 300 you linked to, but I think a zoom would be far more versatile.

I’m really feeling the difference between cropped and full frame now, going from shooting a 40D for 8+ years to my 6D I bought 2 weeks ago. I’m keeping the 40D, so I’ll probably end up using it for this purpose. It’s a great outdoor camera and the fps rate is faster than my 6D.

I’m not comfortable buying used. Unless I can inspect and test it first. I’ve bought refurbs from Canon, so I’ll most likely go that route. This most likely isn’t going to get a ton of use outside of sports. But I guess we’ll see how long they play for. I’ll happily drop more money on it once I know they’re in it for the long haul. If there was a guarantee I’d be using it from now (8 years old) throughout high school, I’d gladly triple my budget.

[Stu Pitt]

Not sure one lens will do both well. 

For soccer find a used 70-300 Sigma, for basketball the F4 lens won't be your friend indoors.   

Sit on the floor behind the basket and let the kids run towards you.  Their expressions will be priceless.

I have grandkids.  Been there, done that.

I’m just looking for outdoor soccer. My 28-135 does well enough for basketball. Not the fastest aperature lens out there (slower than the 70-200 f/4), but the reach is good enough and my 6D’s ISO handling is quite good. I had a horribly lit gym last week, and pics came out acceptable. Being an athletic trainer (sports med) going on 18 years, I’ve seen many poorly lit gyms. This was by far the worst I’ve been in, so I think I’m good.

I’ve also used my 85 1.8 with my 40D with pretty good results.

I’m just looking for outdoor longer zoom. F/4 and no IS should get the job done pretty well, right? If my 6D doesn’t give me enough reach, I can always use my 40D (cropped sensor). It does quite well outdoors. My only realistic criticism of it is it’s low light performance.

Edit: I want to sit on the floor under the basket, but so far there’s been no room. In the gyms we’ve played in, they have chairs against the wall under the baskets. And our feet are usually on the court. I’ve gotten some great ones when they’re coming towards me from that angle. Sitting on the floor would’ve been far better, making them look bigger and just that perspective alone.

[Stu Pitt]

Just to add...

I’ve grown a whole new level of appreciation for sports photography. Far more difficult than I thought it would be. I’ve taken some pics of nieces and nephews playing sports, but nothing like my own kids now playing.

My 6 year old has a dance recital in June. I’m sure I’m going to butcher those pics. But that’s a whole ‘nother thread.

[Stu Pitt]

I just got a used 70-200 f/4 L (non IS) from B&H. I can’t find a scratch, chip, knick, etc. on it. If it weren’t for me looking up the date code (made in 2011) and the older style lens cap I’d honestly think it was brand new. It’s smaller and lighter than I thought it would be. And the color isn’t that bright white that I’ve seen on the other Canon white zooms. Poking around the internet tells me this lens is supposed to be an off white/beige/cream color, unlike the 2.8 version. Pro pics all look pure white though. Odd.

I haven’t had a chance to put it through the paces yet, but shooting random things around the house, it seems fantastic. Bokeh is way better than I expected, and I expected good bokeh. Using the 200 end on still objects without having IS is definitely going to take some practice. I’ve got a tripod, but I don’t plan on using the lens for non-moving stuff. It’s going to be used for taking pics of my kids. Mainly outside and playing around. Indoor basketball should be ok, as my current zoom only goes to 5.6 on the long end and my 6D’s ISO performance has worked very well.

My 8 year old daughter starts playoffs next week. Can’t wait to see what comes out of my camera. And spring can’t come soon enough to use my new lens and 6D outside. I’ve been scouting out new outdoor locations. Getting antsy.

[Stu Pitt]

I shot my daughter’s basketball game with my new to me Canon 70-200 f/4 L. In a word - wow.

My first handful of pics were a bit soft. Then I realized I had the 6D on One Shot AF instead of Servo. Then looking at my pics in Lightroom I forgot by quickly rembered the first dozen or so would be soft.

Compared to my 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM:
Very few pics were underexposed. We were in a better than average gym, but certainly not optimal lighting.

Razor sharp. And many pics were wide open at f/4, and many were at both ends of the zoom range. Not an in your face difference, but very clearly sharper.

Color and contrast are incredible. In 2 or 3 pics I’ve had to bump them up very slightly in post. The rest need nothing.

I had more misfocused shots than usual, but no more than 10 out of about 325. I had the minimum focus distance switch set to 1.8m instead of 3m so I think that’s what did it; I think the focus is supposed to be faster at the 3m setting.

Once I got to about the picture where I remember I changed the AF setting, looking in Lightroom all I could think was “this is exactly why I bought this lens.” Every single thing is better. The only editing I’ve had to do is cropping and angle adjustment, which are on me and not the lens. Even the auto white balance setting was far more accurate. For reference, I’ve shot in this gym 3 times now so it’s not a case of the lighting was better; I’m comparing pics from those 3 times.

I just have to get used to the minimum focusing distance. I was front row under the basket, a bit too close when they were on the baseline. The pics at that distance weren’t soft, but they were slightly softer than the rest (comparing 70mm shots that were very close vs a few feet further).

I’ve read so many people say this lens is a gateway drug. Their first L lens and it made them replace the non-Ls in their collection with L lenses. I totally get that now. Maybe I’ll sell all my other lenses and get a 50 1.2 L?

Edit: I’m definitely going to keep my 40D for outdoor use for the 1.6x crop factor though. 200mm probably isn’t long enough for soccer.