John Kennedy , Jun 27, 2009; 08:46 p.m.
I own the canon 70-300 IS lens on a 40D and found it difficult to photograph my son's baseball games at dusk even when cranking up the ISO (too slow a shutter speed). I was considering the 70-200 2.8 IS. I thought it would help and would be a good lens for any indoor sports/school activities. I would consider myself an amateur and am having a tough time "pulling the trigger" on this expensive lens. I probably should have bought that lens in the beginning instead of the 70-300.
Clayton Tullos , Jun 27, 2009; 08:53 p.m.
The IS won't help you freeze action, it will just help with camera shake. The 2.8 will help.
So if you went with the 2.8 non IS you would save a few hundred.
Tommy Lee , Jun 27, 2009; 08:59 p.m.
An used one will save another few hundred bucks. For less pain, sell the 70-300 IS first before buying. Do that after the all stars / summer league games first before you buy, then you won't miss anything. Hey may be there will be fall rebate then.
Alan Bryant , Jun 27, 2009; 09:24 p.m.
Also, Tamron and Sigma both make 70-200/2.8 lenses. I haven't used either, but most reviews I've seen say that optically they're quite good. Both are much less expensive than Canon's. Neither one has IS, but that shouldn't matter much for sports.
Andy Collins 
, Jun 27, 2009; 09:46 p.m.
If you can afford to buy the 70-200 f/2.8IS, do so. It's one of the best lenses Canon has ever made and one of the best zooms any company has ever made. I've used mine for several years on my 1vHS, my 20D when I used that camera, and now on my 30D, all with outstanding results. It's a lens you'll be very glad you purchased.
Ed V. , Jun 27, 2009; 10:45 p.m.
I'm also a non-professional and got the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS version for shooting my son's baseball games and daughter's gymnastics meets (indoors). I had originally bought the f/4 version thinking it would suffice, but nope. Traded it in for the 2.8 and have not regretted it since. At 1/1000 sec, I have not needed IS.
Bob King , Jun 28, 2009; 12:10 a.m.
I have both the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I use them both, for different purposes. I use the 2.8L when performance and IQ matters (over weight and bulk). The L lens focuses very fast and accurately on my 40D in good light and bad. It even works well (for my purposes) with a 1.4x teleconverter. Just be aware it is big and heavy (and conspicuous), hence I also have the 70-300IS. BTW the 100-400L might be worth investigating. Also the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8 can be used for panning moving subjects.
Cheers, Bob
Dave Holland , Jun 28, 2009; 12:19 a.m.
I have both the IS and the non-IS versions of the 70-200 2.8. The above comments are accurate. These lenses will help you, but maybe not as much as you expect. I strongly recommend the IS, but not for sports! It is only marginally better than the non IS in that arena. But I would get IS anyway because you want to be able to freeze faces for those players who are standing still. IS will help where camera shake is a dominant issue, not subject movement. Ultimately, better technique will be your solution, regardless of what equipment you can afford. Get closer, let nature show you well-lit opportunities, and position yourself to take advantage of that. Use a monopod. Look for photo opportunities close to you so you don't need to work at the long end of your lens. When light fades, put the camera on your lap and enjoy the game.
Also, have a look at Noise Ninja for post processing -- it will give you more confidence that you will end up with usable images despite high ISO.
Dave
Neill Farmer , Jun 28, 2009; 01:03 a.m.
Hi John, I think the problem you have is lighting or the lack of it so 2.8 is the way to go. If you can afford it IS is worth the extra money. Maybe not when you're cranked up at 1/1000th but there are going to be lots of times when you are at f2.8 and 1/100th and that big heavy lens is not easy to hold steady. Bob mentioned the 100-400, and while the zoom range is ideal it is no better at gathering light than your existing 70-300. I have an early Sigma 70-200. It's sharp but a difficult to hold steady, I find I have to rest it on something or else go to the rule of thumb (1/focal lengthx2.5=shutter speed).
Before you spring big $$$s on the 70-200LIS take along a cheap fast lens, say the 50mm 1.8, and see how that copes with the light at 2.8. If that has probems I think you're snookered.
Mercedes De Havilland , Jun 28, 2009; 03:01 a.m.
Hi, the closest thing I use this lens for that is comparable is for drag racing. The finals are at the end of the day when the light is fading fast. This lens and a fast wide are essential. The IS is like an insurance policy plus it does let you extend into the marginal zone. With Non-IS I would get down to maybe 1/125 @200mm and no further if I was trying very hard to be still by leaning on things. The IS lets you get down to 1/30 - 1/40 @200mm. For pro work I would say it is essential to have IS and it will pay for itself in your keeper rate. It lets me shoot much longer, therefore makes more money. For me I couldn't afford not to have it.
For amateur work it's just a toss up if you want to spend that much extra. Things like Baseball where it's a constantly dynamic field with people moving all the time then perhaps the IS won't be as valuable so you could save a fair bit by omitting it. Whatever the choice 2.8 is a must for marginal lit scenes.
