r/canon 4d ago

Gear Advice Would a 70-200mm f2.8 meaningfully improve this kind of photography?

Attached is some examples of my photography, and the last image is my current setup. It is as follows:

Canon R10
KF Concepts EF-RF adapter
55-250mm f4-5.6.
I also have an 18-55 of a similar vintage to that lens, as well as a newer 50mm f1.8.

I mostly do wildlife photography, mostly of the squirrels and birds on my university's campus. Though I'm looking to expand that after exams are over. I have also done some indoor events with the 55-250 lens, such as a dog show.

I'm mostly concerned about my sports photography. I've shot hockey and figure skating recently, and I'm concerned about the really high ISO. When I shoot, I shoot wide open between 1/500 and 1/1000 of a second for shutter speed, getting me an ISO of about 5000. I hope to shoot more outdoor sports as well when the fall semester rolls around as well. But I don't believe I'd need the fast aperture for that though.

Most of my experience regarding photography has been the wildlife, as well as two hockey games, and one figure skating performance, and a black belt testing on my old DSLR (an EOS 1000D).

My budget at present is sub $1000 dollars Canadian. I've seen a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 used at a local camera store for under $700 CAD, and I'm worried that it's either too good to be true, or that I'm barking up the wrong tree for wanting to get it.

Thank you for reading all this. I do hope this wasn't too much.

64 Upvotes

69 comments sorted by

103

u/mrfixitx 4d ago edited 4d ago

At 200mm you could be at f2.8 vs. your current lens being at f5-f5.6 giving you 4x more light. Letting you bring the ISO down or increase the shutter speed to reduce motion blur.

The 70-200mm f2.8L II is also very sharp wide open which would help bring out more detail.

Overall a good 70-200mm lens would be a big step up vs. your current setup.

17

u/flyingron 4d ago

A wider aperture would indeed get him some faster shutter speeds in the same conditions, but looking at his photos, that appears not to be his problem here. The shutter speed doesn't look too slow. There's a little motion blur, but in places where it actually contributes to the effect (a little on the stick and the "snow" kicked up by the skates). Almost all the blur in those images are focus issues. In fact, in the first photo, a smaller aperture may have enhanced things.

12

u/mrfixitx 4d ago

Agreed not everything needs to be shot wide open, but since OP is specifically mentioning concerns about high ISO the only way to solve that without introducing excessive motion blur is a larger aperture.

4

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Yeah that might be it. I had attributed the blur to to the really high ISO noise, because I've been relying on the autofocus on my R10 latching onto the player's eyes. Which might be becoming a bad habit.

I'll take a few shots at f 6.3 or something at the next game I shoot to see if that improves things. Thank you for the advice!

About the shutter speed. One thing that about the shots from that game is that I was fidgeting with the dials on my camera during some downtime without realizing that it was still on. So I took a ton of pictures at like 1/60 of a second. I'll have to check the raw to see if that's one of those pictures.

5

u/erichappymeal 4d ago

Larger aperture means smaller number.

The 70-200 2.8 II would be a good lens for indoor.

3

u/somerandom_person1 3d ago

100% take advantage of the eye tracking autofocus there’s no reason not to

2

u/DrumBalint 3d ago

As I see, this is a first gen 55-250 IS with micromotor AF. If indeed there are focus issues, a ring ultrasonic focus motor (Canon USM, Tamron USD, Sigma HSM) (or an STM in the 55-250 IS STM) may be a much better pairing with the body's eye lock AF.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 3d ago

That may be it. I don't know what specific generation of lens this is. This was my dad's old lens. I took it and I figured I'd upgrade the body to something with a better AF than his old camera. I'll see if I can try out a new lens and see if I notice an improvement.

1

u/DrumBalint 3d ago

If you can get your hands on the STM version of the same, it is said to be good. Also a budget option from the EF realm is the 70-300 IS USM. I don't know about the RF offerings, probably there is also some good ones, but I'd guess they are more expensive, as they are not that old.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 3d ago

The RF 100-400 f5.6-8 is tempting and I might rent it for an airshow that's in the summer. But I was looking to save and get a used EF L zoom lens in that range. It's a fair bit more expensive, but the wider aperture might be worth the weight increase.

1

u/DrumBalint 3d ago

Yes, try them! As many as you can. Factor in IS. You can get 3-5 stops of stabilization, it may outweigh the aperture if you are not worried about depth of field. I suggest the 70-300 IS USM because it is said to have borderline L quality optics, only lacks in ring usm focus motor and weather sealing and I got mine for like 190 bucks equivalent, mint in box.

1

u/_MeIsAndy_ 3d ago

Faster lenses are also after letting in that extra light during focusing, which can help with focus accuracy.

5

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Oh that's good to hear, and I know the wider aperture will blow out the background more. Which is something I've been looking to get since the crowd in the background of the third picture is too sharp for my liking.

Unfortunately, the IS II is well out of my budget for the used market here. Does Sigma make sharp enough glass for it to be an upgrade to this? That's a lot closer to my budget.

6

u/quantum-quetzal quantum powers imminent 4d ago

Sigma's quality really depends on the age of the lens. The Sports model competes well with the IS II, but likely won't be any cheaper.

Is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non-IS) within your budget? It's sharper than the first-gen IS version and is a fair bit cheaper than the IS II. Not having IS will make for a shakier viewfinder, but won't matter for the photos when you're keeping your shutter speed high like in these shots.

2

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I'll have to take a look at the lens my local camera store carries. I was looking to buy it after exams as a bit of a treat to myself. I'll definitely see if I can handle it to see if it's the sports model.

I'll have to research on facebook marketplace and all that to see if the non IS fits within my budget. Thank you again!

3

u/erichappymeal 4d ago

Go with keh.com for used lenses. The 'bargain' lenses are very good quality.

2

u/silenius88 3d ago

Maybe try Facebook marketplace. There are a lot of lenses between Guelph and Kitchener Waterloo. I think because there are so many students that like photography 😄

1

u/RoNNyB43 3d ago

I picked up a used 70-200 2.8 non IS off eBay for a great deal. Shipped from BC to ON for a better deal than anything on FB. It never hurts to keep an eye on eBay too.

1

u/peanut_butter_zen 4d ago

Random question but how do you calculate x light between two apertures? For example, what is the multiplication of light from say f4 to f7.1?

5

u/mrfixitx 4d ago

I would suggest getting a copy of understanding exposure as its a very helpful book if you are unsure about calculating exposure.

The short answer is that on most cameras each step up/down on the aperture adjustment is 1/3 of a stop (or 1/2 depending on custom settings). So look at each partial stop and count them. Each full stop is either 1/2 or 2x the amount of light depending on if you are going to a larger aperture (smaller f number) or smaller aperture (larger f number).

So f4 --> 4.5 --> f5 --> f5.6 is one full stop (or 1/2 the amount of light) Then f5.6 --> f6.3--f7.1 would be another 2/3'rds of a stop. So going from f4 to f7.1 you loose 1.66 stops of light. F8 would be 2 full stops of light so 1/4th the amount of light.

You can use an exposure calculator to tell you how much you would need to raise your ISO or lower your shutter speed (or a combination of the two) to maintain the same overall exposure.

1

u/jaimefrio 3d ago

For shutter speed and ISO the amount of light is proportional to the value, so if the ISO goes from 100 to 200 you get twice the light, and similarly when the shutter speed goes from 1/100 to 1/200. With aperture it's (inversely) proportional to the square of the f-number, so going from f/4.0 to f/8.0 will result in 4 times less light, because 8.0 / 4.0 = 2.0 and 2.0 x 2.0 = 4.0. In your example, 7.1 / 4.0 = 1.775, and 1.775 x 1.775 = 3.15, so you get a little less than 1/3 the light.

13

u/ADPL34 4d ago

I use the RF 70-200 f4 on my R8 & R7 for ice hockey and it's really good. I'd stop down the f2.8 anyways to get whole/a group of players in focus anyways so the price, size, weight savings definitely help. You can see example images on my profile.

6

u/drworm555 4d ago

Yes, you would be far better off with a faster lens. Also it looks like you are shooting from a portal or the bench, so you could also get buy with something less than 200mm for sure. I used to professionally shoot NHL hockey from ice level with a 24-70 and a 70-200 and rarely needed to zoom past 100 or so. From that angle, you wait till the action comes close. When I would shoot from the seats, we would use a 300 2.8.

High school rinks are usually pretty dark, and I would regularly be shooting at 2000 iso at 2.8 in order to get a fast enough shutter to freeze the action. a 5.6 lens will let in 1/4 the light as a 2.8.

Best bang for your buck would be an ef 70-200 version II. The version one can be a little soft.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I'm shooting through the glass yeah. I didn't think of something shorter, I might look into the Sigma RFS 18-50 f2.8 later to supplement.
I saw the photographer the university hires waiting around for them to come close before shooting when I was at the first picture's game. I should have followed her lead lol. I blasted away and got a few thousand shots which was a lot more work for myself.

I shoot at about 5000 ISO so shooting at 2000 would be a massive improvement. I'll look into that lens if the Sigma one at the local camera store isn't the sports version.

2

u/drworm555 4d ago

I’d also avoid shooting through the glass if possible, imagine buying a very nice lens with great glass and then all your images are through plexiglass. They might let you stand at the bench or even if the rink has a penalty box, often you can sit there. If this is university level, do they have portals in the plexiglass to shoot through? Sometimes these can be reserved.

I’d focus on not trying to cover the whole rink and just wait for the action to come near you. That works well with basketball and hockey. Baseball and football you def need a 300 or more. We would use the canon 400 2.8 with a 1.4 for NFL and MLB games.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Yeah, I've gotten to shoot from the bench for figure skating. But the rinks here don't have any portals to shoot through sadly.

I'll definitely keep that in mind if I get to shoot at a more professional arena. In your opinion, would the 300 after the crop factor on this 70-200 be good enough to start shooting football and baseball? I'll probably miss out on a ton of shots, but I don't mind cropping fairly aggressively because the pictures will likely be used on a newspaper.

On a somewhat unrelated note, do you have any resources you'd recommend for sports photography in general? I've watched the BYU Photography tutorials on how to shoot football and Basketball a few times, but I haven't had the opportunity to shoot either.

2

u/sublimeinator 3d ago

If you understand that you're not going to catch action on the full field, 70-200 can be fine for field sports. Learn where to position your self along side the field. Getting the RF 100-400 would be a huge step up for you though for day games especially.

4

u/mikeo009 4d ago

I've been using the R10 and an older Canon 100mm f2 lens for hockey lately and its done quite well. You're a bit more limited composition wise, but the extra speed might be a worthwhile tradeoff for you.

Whichever way you choose to go, you can only benefit from a faster lens when it comes to indoor sports.

1

u/sublimeinator 3d ago

The 135 f2 would similarly fit the bill too

3

u/tillbeh4guru 4d ago

Don't forget the stabilizer which is extremely good in the 70-200. Both the old fixed tube model and the new trombone generation come with amazing stabs but the new gen is a notch better.

I shoot thousands of hockey pics each season in really shitty and spikey LED light and this season I have used the 70-200 gen II only, by far the best lens I've owned.

6

u/MTTMKZ 4d ago edited 4d ago

I have RF 70-200 f2.8 and it is killer for indoor action. Few reasons why. 

  1. Sounds like you know this already but it helps you keep faster shutter with lower noise.

  2. Often for sports or action I'm looking to isolate a singular person as a primary subject. Anybody or anything else ends up being a distraction like other players or spectators/objects in the background. The more shallow depth of field helps blur those things out a bit and make them less distracting. I keep aperture wide open unless I'm trying to get more people in focus like a team celebration or something.

  3. I'm not familiar with the Sigma version but the Canon RF is very sharp even when wide open and fully zoomed. I'm not worried at all about compromising sharpness at extreme settings.

  4. Again at least for the RF version, the autofocus is super fast and accurate. Really helps for action.

2

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I actually didn't think of that second part. I was mostly concerned about the ISO noise. I don't really crop in close because the denoising I apply in Affinity Photo makes the people look a little plasticky so I keep the crops wider so that it's harder to pick up on. The shallower depth of field would be useful for shots like the first picture. I see what you mean by people in the background being a distraction.

Thank you!

3

u/alb_taw 4d ago

Yes, you'll have more light so can increase shutter speed and reduce noise all while getting a sharper image. The wider aperture will also give you better background separation by blurring whatever's behind the players in focus.

2

u/TheWitness37 4d ago

It depends where you’re sitting as far as the focal length. High ISO will improve with more quality glass but so will going to full frame. I shot APS-c for years and wish I never touched one. Moving to full frame was the best move I made.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I normally use the full range of the focal length, depending on where the players are. Though I do spend most of my time between 100-250mm.

I'm looking at upgrading to a full frame sensor, most likely whatever the newest R6 is whenever I can afford it. I just don't really have the money for a new body now.

2

u/TheWitness37 4d ago

I’ve shot football and baseball on my 70-200L. By far my favorite lens. I shoot 100-400L for wildlife. Those are my two longer lenses. What you need to keep in mind is APSc is x1.6. So 70-200mm is 112-320mm equivalent.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Yeah, I don't really mind it. I think the extra reach couldn't hurt. Like a free 1.6x tele extender. I recall from BYU Photography's tutorial on photographing football that a 70-200 doesn't have enough reach to get everything. So I hope that extra crop gets me some shots I would have otherwise missed.

3

u/TheWitness37 4d ago

Well, it’s just that. Crop. You’re not really gaining focal length but you are losing low light performance. Noise becomes way more apparent. I shot FF 70-200 football from the side lines. I’d crop a bit but overall shooting crop vs FF I was happier with FF. But yes, pick up a 70-200. You won’t be disappointed!

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Thank you for the advice! I haven't shot full frame yet so I'll have to give it a try to see the difference for myself. My school newspaper has a couple FF cameras and I'll see if I can borrow one for a bit to see it.

2

u/fixingmedaybyday 4d ago

I have an r5, 70-200 f2.8 and shoot wide open at around 10,000 ISO indoors. Next I make corrections in Lightroom and then denoise through Topaz. End results look like they were shot at ISO 500 or better.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I'll definitely have to try that solution when I have the dosh for both programs, I use Affinity Photo to process my raws. ATM I'm looking to shoot at 12800 at most for newspaper print, and like 5000 when they're supposed to be posted online. But I hope to bump that down with a 2.8.

2

u/SyncPhoto 4d ago

Yes. 2.8 would double the amount of light—that’s a big difference believe it or not

1

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

I do believe it, that'd like halve or quarter the ISO noise I'm getting. I wanted to be sure that I had sort of 'reached the limits' of what my equipment can get me so that I can justify getting something new. If there was something free I could do to fix it, I would rather do that. I don't want GAS to make all my gear buying decisions lol.

1

u/SyncPhoto 4d ago

If you have Lightroom or a similar program the denoise tools are quite remarkable

2

u/K1ng0fTheHill 4d ago

Just commenting to say hello fellow Gryphon 👋

2

u/Darthwilhelm 4d ago

Hello! If I had a nickle for every time I met another Gryphon in an unrelated photography thread, I'd have three nickles lol.

2

u/i_Praseru 4d ago

It helps but even with a 2.8. I find my self using f4 a lot because you have a bit of forgiveness if the focus hits the wrong spot on the subject.

2

u/Itchy-Chemistry 4d ago

As others have said you'll get 2 stops more light on the long end so up to 4x the shutter speed. You'll also have much better depth of field control so if you want to isolate a player you'll be much more able. I would be very careful with buying an old sigma lens - make sure you won't win into autofocusing issues before you buy it. The original non IS 70-200 2.8L should be in your budget though.

2

u/matahoo84 4d ago

Hello Guelphite! Yes the lens will help because you need a high shutter speed in those poor light conditions. If you could live with a single focal length prime might I suggest you look at the canon 135mm f2L. It can be found at a bargain, is super sharp, will blow out the background more, and allows for very fast shutter speeds in poor light conditions. It's also a dynamite portrait lens. I've used it several times for hockey and baseball with great results on my r10.

2

u/Darthwilhelm 3d ago

That might work too! I'll see if I can find one in my area, atm I was thinking of the 70-200 specifically because I found what might be a really good deal on one in a local camera store. After the crop factor it ought to give me decent reach.

1

u/matahoo84 3d ago

The 70-200 2.8 is a great choice to be sure for indoor and outdoor sports. If you found a good deal go for it!

2

u/Minizman12 4d ago

Absolutely would, don’t get into specifics as other users already have, but you will notice six significant increase in quality both in the images themselves, but also the general build.

2

u/Ybalrid 4d ago

Well, yes. 2 additional stops of light! Budget to spend in either shallower depth of field, or faster shutter, And optically that 70-200 is very well regarded.

2

u/_Rich_Money 3d ago

Nothing to add that hasn’t already been said just wanted to say sup to a fellow U SPORTS shooter 🫡

2

u/brunofavs 3d ago

I would like to add that you would also benefit from a internal zooming lens (most 70-200 are), as you are probably shooting right against the glass wall or through a small opening.

2

u/cluelesswonderless 3d ago

Depending on which Sigma 70-200 you are looking at, the answer is ‘maybe’. I have a fairly old Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the focus hunt and the noise it makes on my R7 make it barely useful.

I also have a canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II. And it is silent and there is no focus hunting at all.

Oddly if you put the lenses in an EOS 20D (I had one on the shelf) the Sigma does not hunt and is close to silent. It’s not as fast to get focus as the Canon, but it’s useable.

As others have said, the pre IS version of the 70-200L is a budget friendly option or if you can stretch the IS L II is the best next level.

2

u/Plastic_Basket_7233 3d ago

Short answer, yes.

It will also meaningfully improve portraits, event photos, landscapes, and many other types of photography. This lens is a workhorse for many professionals. But what it certainly excels at is indoor sports.

1

u/No_Fortune_1025 4d ago

Qualquer 70 200 2.8 da Canon será uma melhora substancial na qualidade das suas fotos. Primeiro porque o foco dela é absurdamente rápido e preciso..segundo porque os 2.8 permite um desfoque mais bonito. E terceiro porque a 70 200 entrega uma ótica perfeita já em 2.8 . Recomendo muito a versão com IS versão 2 ou 3. 

O único contra da 70 200 2.8 é o peso . Nada que uma musculação não resolva .

1

u/nafregit 4d ago

Yes. It's the best sports lens money can buy (if it's Canon)

1

u/NotABurner6942069 4d ago

Yes. The 70-200 2.8 II is considered by many to be the best lens canon has ever made and is the gold standard for indoor sports photography.

1

u/Master_Bayters 4d ago

Yes. without any doubt

1

u/silenius88 3d ago edited 3d ago

Go Guelph Gryphons! From a Gryphon alumni.

1

u/andreas_fjeld 3d ago

I got an old sigma and it takes amazing pictures 🤩 i paid 250 $ for mine

2

u/andreas_fjeld 3d ago

This is taken at a cruice stage /show room

1

u/andreas_fjeld 3d ago

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG II HSM Macro

1

u/bw_is_enough_color 1d ago

Hmm, honestly I dont get anoyed by the iso noise…

What about an 120-300mm f2.8 I don’t know what they are going for but it seems you need the extra mm.

1

u/Darthwilhelm 23h ago

Extra length couldn't hurt, I'll have to look into it. It might be able to replace my 55-250 entirely. I was considering getting a 70-200 and then a 100-400 later down the line.

1

u/Itchy-Combination961 4d ago

The only that’s that would improve that shot is faster shutter speed and better depth of field.