I want to photograph a few sporting events locally.
2.8 is obviously a lot more expensive, but is it worth it?
70-200 lens
You must log in or register to comment.
A stop of difference
Two.
My Minolta Beercan has a maximum aperture of f4 at which it is as sharp as a very sharp thing in a razor blade factory. But it weighs enough to give me the trembles.
All depends on the available light where you are shooting.
F2.8 lenses are bigger, weigh more and cost a good bit more. Can’t tell you if it is worth it for a stop of light. Not enough information was provided.
Depending on what kind of sports you’re doing, 2.8 will be MUCH better for indoors and worth the extra money. I’ve been shooting pro wrestling a lot this year and for our outdoors shows, I’d be fine with f/4’s, but the moment we aren’t it is 100% a need for 2.8.
IMO 70-200 2.8 is worth every penny.
Also depending on your camera mount, a 70-200 2.8 from Tamron or Sigma might be worth it. If you’re on Sony or Nikon you could even consider the 35-150 2-2.8.
It depends on whether the sport is outdoors or indoors. If there’s an abundance of light, the f4 lens should perform very favorably as far autofocus speed and accuracy.
What body, DSLR or Mirrorless? If DSLR, I would buy a clean used F2.8 with image stabilization. If Mirrorless, an F4 with IS will be fine.
This does not make sense. What exactly are you meaning?
It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. F4 is great for saving weight and cost, but you’ll always wonder “what if?”
If you can afford it, get the 2.8, if you can’t, get the 4 and use it and test to see if you really need the 2.8, lenses hold their value well so you can always trade up. And of course, you can rent to try before you buy either.
It’s noticeable, but the advantage you’ll get shooting sports is the faster shutter speeds you can get. If you’re serious about what you want to photograph it’ll be worth the extra money. Just make sure you’re going to use it enough to make it worthwhile. The last long zoom I bought I ended up selling because I rarely actually needed it.
The longer your lens, the more shutter speed you want.
The more active the sport (say basketball vs golf), the more shutter speed you want.
The less light in the venue, the bigger f/stop you want.
All of those say F/2.8 over F/4. If you want to save money, give up a few millimeters on the long end. I bought a 70-180/2.8 Tamron, and I don’t miss that 20mm on the long end. The lens is a lot more compact as well. Also shoot raw, high ISO, and use really good denoising software. But it’s always better to have sharp, noisy photos than fuzzy, smooth photos.
if you dont know what is the diference, you should buy nothing…
If money ain’t the problem get the f/2.8 and you’ll get both apertures. Imma just tell you I have a 70-200 f/2.8 and that thing is heavy as hell. And quite big aswell
The difference is a factor of two.
IMHO, yes, it is worth it.
The 70-200 2.8 is a super versatile lens, you can do sports, portraits, landscape, etc. This is one of those that you buy once and you keep for 10+ years.
I got a 2nd hand Tamron 2.8 and is super fast and super sharp at 2.8. It was expensive but didnt break the bank.
IMHI is a long term investment you wont regret.
I haven’t even moved up to the 70-200. Still rocking the push/pull 80-200 f2.8D(nikon) over here lol. It is my most used lens indoors. It and the 50mm f1.4D. Have rented and shot the 70-200 several times just can’t justify the cost to buy when the 80-200 is doing the job.
It’s one stop of light.