Canon EF 70mm-200mm is ll USM Lens

[Mallard]

Using T2i body, hand hold @ night lit sports Soccer. I had allot of blurring (Goalie standing still) last season in the later part of the matches.  I was using a EFS-55-250 1:4-5.6 is ll.  Used Sports mode AV, and M. Blurring remained a problem at still shots or actions shots.  I figure I need the f/2.8 to gather enough light to accomplish the results wanted.    I would like some info on lens above, both pros and cons although it proably doesn't have any cons.  I am not a pro or anywhere close.  Started shooting when I got my first Canon AE-1.  I will be mostly using @ 200mm with f/2.8 in the applications above.  Will this lens get the job done?   I have read that @ 200mm the outer edges of the images are white or a lot lighter than the inner poritions.  Is there any truth to this?  If so, can it be handled in a photo program if I shoot in RAW?   Any guidence would be greatly appreciated!

[RobertTheFat]

---

bloobirdies wrote:

,,,

Also, the majority of the shots were at 70mm, then...
If I shoot at 200mm, is the light constricted even more; the higher the mm, the more you have to add/accommodate your lens with light?

Please help me make my decision before the season comes in a few weeks.

Thank you for your help 

---

No, all versions of the 70-200 are "constant aperture" zooms, which means that their widest aperture is f/2.8 (or f/4) at all focal lengths.

[bloobirdies]

Thank you Bob!

[Mallard]

I went to the 2.8 for extra light it would provide while shooting after sunset and illumination was provided by artificial sources. My camera is below yours with respect to ISO maximums, therefore the 70-200mm 2.8 allowed the lighting I required. I was unable to compensate with ISO, so the 2.8 was invaluable for me. If you are able to get the images you wish with ISO and don't want the weight of the 70-200mm 2.8 then I would continue as you have. When and if the time arises that you are no longer satisfied with your pictures and are unable to compensate, I would make the upgrade to the 70-200mm 2.8 at that time!

[ebiggs1]

"I went to the 2.8 for extra light it would provide ..."

One thing, it is only one stop.  Not a world changer by any means.  If you commonly shoot at ISO 1600, it means you now can shoot at ISO 800.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I went to the 2.8 for extra light it would provide ..."

One thing, it is only one stop.  Not a world changer by any means.  If you commonly shoot at ISO 1600, it means you now can shoot at ISO 800.

---

It can be a world changer of you plan to use an extender. I know you don't like extenders, Ernie, but not everyone shares that aversion. Especially on a good lens like the 70-200, which doesn't suffer an IQ hit when used with an extender of comparable quality.

[ebiggs1]

"One thing, it is only one stop."

You have more issues if one stop changes your world.