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!

[ScottyP]

Buy one.

I have one and I have never heard of lighter edges.  

If there is going to be a difference at the edges, any lens will show darker edges (vignetting) not lighter edges.  

Also since you are shooting a crop sensor camera, your edges will be cut off of the pictures, because the image circle coming through the lens is bigger than the sensor, so you won't even get much vignetting.

[jrhoffman75]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II L lens is an outstanding lens, and you won't go wrong if you purchase it.

However, I have an alternate scenario for you to consider.

The T2i is an older body. The newest Rebel (T6s) is significantly improved.

For about the same money you could buy a T6s and the 70-200 f/4L IS. You loose one stop, but the ISO performance of the T6s is so much better I feel you would more than offset that difference.

Hopefully others will add their thoughts.

[Mallard]

Mr. Hoffman: Do you think this will address my blurring problems during shooting at night in low lighting on sports fields? Like I say I am not pro and that combination didn't occur because I don't know much about the T6. Thanks so much for the advice!

[ebiggs1]

Although the 70-200mm f2.8L USM IS II is my favorite lens of all time, this statement may be a little overstated.

      "The 70-200 f/2.8 II L lens is an outstanding lens, and you won't go wrong if you purchase it."

I agree as I said, my favorite lens but that still is no guarantee that it is going to get you your soccer photos.  No one can tell you that without seeing your particular circumstance.

I will say if it can't do it, it is likely no other lens will either.

[jrhoffman75]

I can't say it will solve your problem because you are in extreme conditions. Even the best cameras have limits.

But, either of the L zoom lenses have superior image stabilization that will help for static subjects where blur is caused by your motion.

The T6s will allow higher ISO, and thus higher shutter speed, for equivalent noise compared to the T2i.

The f/2.8 lens will allow 1stop higher shutter speed compared to the f/4 always.

In my opinion the T6s and f/4 will give you better results than the T2i and f/2.8 for close to the same money.

Depending on lighting conditions neither option may not prevent blurry pictures.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mallard wrote:

@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!

---

The "con" of that lens is that it's very large and heavy. Its performance is every bit as good as everyone says it is, but you have to be in pretty good physical condition to want to carry it around. A tripod or monopod would help; but those are an impediment to mobility, and that is not a studio lens. Like many event photographers, I routinely carry two cameras, with the 70-200 on one of them, and it can be a pretty tiring experience. I think it's worth it, but not everyone would necessarily agree.

I suppose John Hoffman's suggestion (that you buy a T6i and settle fot the f/4 version of the 70-200) has merit. I've never used the f/4, so I can't comment on that; but the T2i, an excellent camera in its day, is a relatively mediocre performer by today's standards. The T6i and the 70-200 f/4 would certainly represent an upgrade of your current equipment.

[jrhoffman75]

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/09/03/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-review-mk2-vs-f4-comparison-...

[jrhoffman75]

If you're not already using one I would recommend a monopod for sports shooting; definitely use one if you are getting one of the "L" zooms.

Right now it sounds like you are getting motion blur even with static subjects. A monopod and image stabilzation would help with that to some degree (not totally eliminate).

As a test, set your camera to Tv and select a 1/1000 shutter speed, select the highest ISO your camera will allow and see what kind of results you can get with your current lens.

Pictures will probably be pretty noisy, but if at least you are stopping action you know you have a chance. If you can't stop action in those cases maybe there's just not enough light.

[PajamaGuy]

These guys have given pretty good advice - and since I've been doing what you're doing, with the same equipment, I;ll offer my $0.02.

Talking about the 70-200 2.8 assumes you have $2,000 to spend.  I just got one, and yes, the lens is great - but be prepared cause it's 3 lbs. - and the T2 really won't do it justice.  I have the T3i, and the 55-250 IS II.  I first upgraded to the 55-250 STM - the glass is better, and the STM tracks focus faster and smoother.  But I still wasn't getting the lower-light performance so I went up to the T6s - for it's improved processor, AI Focus tracking, and low-light focusing.  The T6s and the 55-250 STM is a great combination.  And you should be able to get the combo for under $1100.

I have a couple of 600EX flashes and with the T6s, the 55-250, a monopod, and one of the 600's camera-mounted, I was able to get some acceptable shots (4x6, 5x7) even when the action was 75-100 ft away. - Bear in mind that at a sync speed of 250, if there is too much light there will be ghosting from before/after the flash fires.  Kind of a catch-22. 

This shot is across the field, under the lights, no flash.  7D2, 55-250 IS STM, @ 1/800, ISO 12,800, 250mm, and cropped.

But I wanted more. So I got a 7D2 for $1200 and there was an immediate improvement - low-light focusing, tracking, higher acceptable ISO, double processors, etc.  But everywhere I read, the world's #1 lens is reported to be the 70-200 2.8 - so Santa dropped one down the chimney.  f/ 2.8 is a whole lot different than f/5.6  (the 55-250 jumps to 5.6 around 150mm) - but like I said, it's 3 lbs, and $2,000)

I've only done basketball so far and I haven't found the "right" settings yet, but I love it, and can't wait for spring baseball!

I'm no expert - and not a pro - I'm just a grandfather shooting grandkids. 

PJ