Best sports lenses for Canon 7D

[jrh]

I have both the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200 f/4 IS (wife has now claimed the f/4). I prefer the shallower DOF that the one stop gives you with the f2.8. It really isolates the subject. It is also quite a bit heavier. I also had the 70-300 non L and while I got some nice sharp shots at times, I also got the opposite - some soft images. My 2 cents.

+1 The 70-200 f2.8 is the way to go with the 7D - I have shot over 30k pics of my various kids sports with this combo.  Well worth the extra money IMHO.  I purchased a 5Dmk3 a few months ago and the 70-200 takes on a whole new meaning with FF, it will be a lens that will last you a long time and is very versatile.

[acaurora]

Another 7D+ 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II user here. I take photos for bicycle races in Northern California, and have to agree this is a great combination. One thing I would change though if I were to do it all over again - get the non IS version. I rarely have IS on while taking pictures since I am static and there is no real movement from me other than my hands - and for me just controlling breathing and knowing when to press the shutter is all I need. I have only really had the IS on when I am taking pictures from out of a car that is in front of the bike racers. I also agree to try several other lenses, such as the aforementioned fisheyes or super telephotos.

Use a lens rental service such as BorrowLenses. That will help you decide which one(s) to buy ... I used them to determine if I wanted a Mk I or Mk II 70-200... I found the Mk I that I borrowed from a friend several times to be a little bit softer and the Mk II to be sharper.

[bseitz234]

I agree with what has already been mentioned- IS is most worthwhile if you plan on shooting a lot of video. If you're looking primarily at lenses for stills, then I have been very happy with the non-IS version. If money was no object, I'd probably consider an upgrade to the v2 IS, but the vast majority of the time, my shutter speed is fast enough to render IS useless. So do bear that in mind when choosing a 70-200. Oh, and the background blur/subject isolation you get at 200/2.8 is awesome, so don't be tempted by the f/4 

As for a shorter lens, the  17-55 is great. If you plan on shooting video, and want IS in your 70-200, then you get IS with that lens, and a 2.8 max aperture. But, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is supposed to be a great lens also. Personally, I have found 17 more than wide enough for most uses- especially sports. I usually use my 70-200 for all the action, and then put on the 17-55 for candids and crowd shots when everything's all said and done. So I don't think a 10-xx lens should be an immediate consideration- 70-200, then a 24-70 or 17-55, and finally an ultra-wide IF you think you really want it.

again, just my 2 cents.

[djurma11]

I've used the 70-200 f/4, 2.8, 2.8 IS, and 2.8 IS mk2 on APS-C sensors. The 2.8 II is by far the best lens, especially for football where shutter speed and subject isolation is key. The f/4 is really sharp, but will only be useful in bright daylight situations and the 2.8 II is probably a bit sharper when stopped down.

In other words, if you have the money, get the 2.8 II. You will not be disappointed.

[mdmphoto]

I got a deal on ebay for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS "I" a couple of years ago and have never regretted my purchase.  I use it on my 7D with always good results- indoors and out- as long as my own mechanics are good.  For daylight outdoor sports the canon 70-300 IS (non-L) gives good results.  I also use the 17-55 f/2.8 IS- also an ebay deal, for wider shots.  Right now I covet the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, and the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. BTW, I also use a kenko 1.4 extender when needed, with good results.

[Haydn1971]

If budget is a problem, why not consider the 135mm f2 or 200mm f2.8 primes - not as flexible, but I used to get good crops from my 135L on my old 450D - it's easy to say 70-200 f2.8 IS when it's not your own cash - search around for a local specialist photography shop too, most sell second hand and the 135/200mm primes do sometimes come up for sale.

[CanNotYet]

You could also take a look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD. IT has gotten really good reviews and is at 1500$ a lot cheaper than the Canon.

Oh, and it is also black.

[RocklandDragon]

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

[djurma11]

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

That sounds a little too good to be true, but it's a great deal. the 70-200 f/4 usually goes for about that much. I would definitely check the lens for any defects, especially the glass inside and out, but I would jump on that.

[Rienzphotoz]

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more

[bseitz234]

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more

you're mixing up your apertures 

I agree that if it really is a 2.8, that seems too good to be true... even used from B+H, the 2.8 non-is usually goes for around $1000. ish. If you can really get one in good shape for $550, I will be very jealous.

[RocklandDragon]

Oh, darn.  I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame.    I contacted the seller and it was f/4.   My fault on that one.

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more

you're mixing up your apertures 

I agree that if it really is a 2.8, that seems too good to be true... even used from B+H, the 2.8 non-is usually goes for around $1000. ish. If you can really get one in good shape for $550, I will be very jealous.

[bseitz234]

Oh, darn.  I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame.    I contacted the seller and it was f/4.   My fault on that one.

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more

you're mixing up your apertures 

I agree that if it really is a 2.8, that seems too good to be true... even used from B+H, the 2.8 non-is usually goes for around $1000. ish. If you can really get one in good shape for $550, I will be very jealous.

probably just as well... if it had been a 2.8 for that money, I probably would have found the seller, and called them, and bought it out from under you 

[Rienzphotoz]

A local seller has a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Non IS USM lens for $550.  What'd y'all think?  Is that a good deal?  I still want the version II and will still get it, but this looks a little tempting.  I trust Canon's build quality and I'd test the lens of course, but it is as is.

Hmmm....

The current retail price of EF 70-200 f/4 is $659 ... so your local seller is selling it for about $100 less ... if it is new, that's a pretty sweet deal and I would buy it ... but if it is used, you are better off buying the new one for just another $109 more

you're mixing up your apertures 

I agree that if it really is a 2.8, that seems too good to be true... even used from B+H, the 2.8 non-is usually goes for around $1000. ish. If you can really get one in good shape for $550, I will be very jealous.

Ooops  my bad ... some reason I read it as f/4 ... looks like I need a new pair of glasses. But, if it really is an f/2.8, in good condition and selling for $550, just go for it before it is gone.

[Rienzphotoz]

Oh, darn.  I am the one that mixed up the apertures. Shame.    I contacted the seller and it was f/4.   My fault on that one.

Man I really need some new pair of glasses ... I did not read your above comment before I commented earlier. ... sure is a day of embarrassments.