zoom (telephoto) lenses

[boBQuincy]

I have a Canon 55-200 (older version of the much better 55-250) and a Canon 70-200 f/4 (no IS). To start with there is not a 2x difference in image quality between the $1100 lens and the $550 lens, nor is there even a 2x difference between the $1100 lens and the $250 lens. The law of diminishing returns works here, and the improvements in image quality get smaller as the price goes up.

However... There are big differences in: build quality, focus speed, sealing, handling, etc. The L lens is of course built very well, the length of the lens does not change with zooming or focusing (eliminating a major cause of dust in the lens), the front element does not rotate, a tripod collar is available, focusing is *very* fast (even faster with the minimum focus distance select switch), image quality is excellent even wide open.

If all of these, and the extra stop of light are important, the extra $$$ is probably worth it. And don't forget the "free" lens hood!

 

[jfinke]

You could also look at the 70-200 2.8L without IS. It is similarly priced to the f/4L IS.

 

[mabas9395]

Whatever you get, chances are good you will wish you would have gotten the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L instead and you will be tempted to upgrade at some future date. Which means selling your old one for less than you paid for it, so it will actually be cheaper for you if you just get the big one in the first place.

Thats what I told my wife and it worked. Its probably my most used lens.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

IS won't help at all with the hockey shots. Indoor hockey is hard. The faster the better. The ideal lenses would be the 135mm f/2 and the 200mm f/2, but they are expensive ($1,000 and $5,000) and don't zoom. The higher your minimum f/stop, the more trouble you will have.

With that said, I'd opt for the cheap solution first. It'll give you something to learn with and will give you a sense for what you need. If you find that with an f/5.6 lens you need just a bit more shutter speed, you might upgrade to the f/4. You may find that you are still 3 full stops from getting the pictures you want. In that case, the f/4 lens won't help much.

If you knew you were going to become a series sports photog that was willing to make significant sacrifices in money, bulk, and weight to get the shots they wanted, jumping straight to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS would make sense. Few people really know where they are heading with their hobby, so it is best to start with a small budget and acquire more costly tools/toys as you have a better understanding of their value. As Bob said, when you double the price of a lens, you don't double it's usefulness. It takes experience and knowing yourself to decide whether the incremental gain is worth the incremental cost. You do risk buying something that you'll quickly grow out of, but I think that happens less often than overbuying.

Just buy the 200mm f/2 and see what happens. If you don't want it, I'll give you half price for it, no questions asked.

 

[Frantasmic]

How close can you get to the action? Another option is the following lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It's a prime, but if you can get somewhat near the ice in the middle, you should get some really good pictures with this lens. The dilemma though is whether you be happier with the 70-200 f4 at twice the price.

I shoot a lot of indoor choir shots and got the 85mm f1.8. I have been happy with it so far, shooting in raw and without flash. I have not filmed many hockey games, and when I did, I had my S5 with me, but I found that the white ice made up for lack of lighting. Of course, I was in a pro place which was lit up very well.

No doubt you'd be thrilled with the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM for years to come. If it's too big an economic bite right now though, look at a smaller prime if you think you can get pretty close to the action.

 

[jann1033]

if f4 would be enough you can usually pick up a used 70-200f4 non is for around the same price as the 70-300 and the iq is rated better as well as better than the f2.8 IS and about the same as the f4 IS. you can check adorama or b&H where they are rated as to condition or someplace like fredmiranda where they aren't. the new 70-200 f4 non IS is closer to $800. just check to make sure the calibration is right.

 

[Argent]

I know it is a little more money but by far the best lens in the 70-200 2.8. I have used it for years shooting sports and auto racing. It is a great lens but very heavy. I would not consider lugging it around on vacation such as WDW. The IS will give you a couple more stops but when shooting sports it doesn't work that well. If you have the money I would look into buying the 2.8 lens without IS. If you look online at B&H photo video I think they sell it for around $1150. Also, if you are looking to buy a canon lens you can save anywhere from $25-$50 if you purchase a non-US model. DO NOT DO IT. The difference in the warranty is not worth it.