Will the 70-200 f2.8 improve my photo quality with a rebel T7?

[Lkcphotos31]

I currently shoot with a rebel t7 and noticed it struggles in low light setting like poorly lit football fields. I usually shoot outdoor sports during the day and my camera does fine but recently I shot some flag football at night and noticed there was a lot of noise present in my photos. Would upgrading my lens from a standard 75-300 to a 70-200 f2.8 improve the image quality, like specifically less noise or should I just consider upgrading my camera. 

[Tronhard]

My first comment is that the EF 75-300 is one of Canon's worst optics, so you can only go up from there.  There is a huge difference in performance between Canon's poorest kit lens and a professional-grade L-series lens like the 70-200.  So, all things being equal, I would expect your images to be much better in low light for a couple of reasons:
1. Being a much faster lens, you can afford to drop the ISO and/or increase the exposure in your images.  Noise usually appears when one is either under-exposing an image, or shooting at a very high ISO for the performance of the sensor.  I emphasize that because you will still be limited by the fact the T7 is at the low end of the camera sensor range.  However, if you are not intending to get a whole new kit (which is a very different discussion), then you should see some improvement in this context.
2.  Under-exposing the image.  If any sensor is not given enough light, which is up to the photographer, then it will still exhibit noise.  That is up to you, and we have no view of your images to be able to comment on that.

So, yes, I would expect the Canon EF 70-200 to give you cleaner images.  Note that you are now shooting with a 100mm less maximum focal length, which on a crop-sensor camera will actually be perceived as a 160mm drop in Field of View.  So, the question is whether you can accept that reduction in focal range and capture capability.

There are multiple versions of this lens and you can get an idea of that range from this link:
Site Search: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com).  The range covers a considerable period of time and capability, with some having image stabilization.  The rest is down to price and condition.

[kvbarkley]

Check your images, if you find yourself shooting between 200 and 300 mm, the 70-200 might feel a bit cramped.

(If you use Photos on a Mac, you can use a smart album to see how many images you shoot at various focal lengths.)

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Agree with KVB's and Tronhard's comments.  While good gear helps, technique, practice and skill can ultimately define the success of a photographer.  Having the right tools is important, it certainly helps.  In the case of a T7 and 75-300, you will have more success upgrading both the body and lens.

The T7 is an entry level DSLR. It has a digic7 processor that has limited ISO performance.  The 75-300 is not one of Canon's best endeavors. Not only does it lack image stabilization, but it's overall image quality is entry level.  This coupled with it's variable aperture does not make it a great lens for night time sports photography, Even indoors.  

Your lenses are actually the "real" investment in photography.  They are the enablers and are typically what you move forward with.  Body's will come and go, but making wise lens purchase decisions can be lasting ones. 

[rs-eos]

In situations where you cannot add your own light, there are two primary ways to combat low light:

1. Lenses with wider apertures.  Esp those with constant aperture across the entire focal length range.   However, as stated earlier, be mindful of moving to a 70-200mm as you won't get the same close-up capabilities as with your 75-300.  There does exist an EF 300mm f/2.8, but you can only get that used and it still costs quite a bit.   Primes will offer even wider apertures, but their fixed focal length could be a major limitation for sports.
2. A better camera.  More modern cameras have better ISO performance.  e.g. when I moved from a Rebel T4i to a 6D (1st generation), I estimated around 1.67 stop better performance in ISO.   Meaning that even at ISO 6400 on the 6D, that would be like taking an image on the Rebel at around ISO 2000.

Also note that working with wider apertures can be challenging due to narrower depth of field.  So it will be more crucial to nail focus upon your desired subjects.

[ebiggs1]

OK, here is the direct skinny. You have this lens Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens? You are considering this lens Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens or one of its siblings? Consider, f4-5.6 (your current lens) is only 1 to 2 stops slower then the f2.8L lens is. In other words, buying it will get you at most two stops. Now two stops may be all you need to get you what you are after but without actually seeing the venue no one here can say it will.

There is no doubt the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens is the better lens since it is the best lens made in this category bar none. Light years better than your current lens. Buying it you can always use it on a better camera later on if you want to. Most of the time the lens is where its at being well more important than the camera.

Another very important factor is how you shoot. You must d/l DPP4 form Canon. It is free and it is a good post editor. Secondly, you must shoot Raw format. Raw format and DPP4 can easily get you that 1 to 2 stop advantage. Raw and DPP4, or another good editor, is mandatory to get top IQ photos!