Best sports lenses for Canon 7D

[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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

I picked up one for $300 last year along with a ton of other stuff for give away prices. The lens had been sitting in its box for 7 years, and could not be told from new. The owner listed it on Craigslist, and still had his purchase receipts. He then showed me all the other stuff he planned to list and named prices. I bought it all. He had used film up until eight or nine years ago, then bought a point and shoot, and liked that. He was in his 70's, and did not want to deal with heavy equipment.

Deals like that just don't happen very often, once every several years.

 

[greger]

Go for the 2.8 IS USM ll. Until it came out the F4 IS USM was a newer lens and a better choice for sharp pics. They now have the same close focus distance. 3.94 ft. and the 2.8 is supposed to be as sharp as the F4 and may be sharper? If that's possible.
With my 2X extender I wish I had the 2.8 ll. I'll just have to try harder and work harder for my pics that I want to take.
Good Luck!

 

[RuneL]

What kind of sport?

Soccer? 400MM 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 (need two bodies really and probably 1D's)

 

[RocklandDragon]

What kind of sport?

Soccer? 400MM 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 (need two bodies really and probably 1D's)

American football.

I'm going to rent the non IS version in a few weeks (barring some unexpected expense that ruins my plans--that would suck) and see if the video will shake like a leaf in a windstorm. Most reviews I read say the non IS is good for sports since the action is moving and IS may not be needed for shots. I believe some here have said the same thing, so I'll try out the non IS. If it's good, then I could use the near grand I save towards a 24-70 or 17-55 lens for wide shots and video.

 

[skitron]

Another lens to consider is the 200mm f/2.8 L if you can do without the zoom on your long lens. It is as good as the 70-200 IS2 long end, very light weight and compact comparitively speaking, mint used for about $500. I actually have both of these lenses...bought the 70-200 IS2 new and bought a mint 200 f/2.8 for $460. It's very difficult to tell them apart when doing comparison shots.

Nice thing is it would get you into a very good longer lens for not much $ if you buy used and you can always turn it for what you paid if/when you want to go for the 70-200 IS2.

The 70-200 IS2 is a fantastic lens but that thing is a boat anchor, so there is a certain desireableness to the compactness and light weight of the 200 f/2.8 that keeps it around here despite the redundancy "shot-wise", especially given not much $ tied up in it.

 

[Don Haines]

Come on..... It's football!!!!! Go Long! Go Wide!

Lots of comments above about long.... great for the players..... but if you really want to capture the feel of the stadium, try out the 10-20.... and even with it you may need to stitch a few shots together to really capture it.

 

[RocklandDragon]

I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.

Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.

 

[bseitz234]

I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.

Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.

keep an eye on the refurbs- the 70-200 2.8 non-IS had been in stock for a while, apparently now is sold out, but it may come back before May. Great way to stretch your budget a little further. 10-22 and 17-55 IS are both in stock if you want to get a wide lens now...

 

[RocklandDragon]

Best Buy still has some non-IS versions of the lens on their website and they are selling for $1349. Although, a seller on Craigslist in Texas is selling one for $900. She took pictures of the lens and it looks fine. Looks legitimate and since I would be meeting the person to buy the lens, I could test it out and see if everything is functional. It's tempting because $400+ dollars savings before tax is a lot of savings (albeit with no warranty and lens is used of course). She lives quite far from where I'm at in Texas but I'll be visiting San Antonio next week and where she is at isnt long from San Antonio. Might be to only chance I can get it.

Any of y'all (yes y'all 8) ;D ) buy lenses from Craigslist before?

I wanted to get the IS II but it looks like budget will be an issue. :'( If I get this lens, this is the only lens I would be able to get and I wont be able to afford a wide lens before the season starts. I'll go ahead and get the f/2.8 non IS version and get it before the end of May. I can shoot video with the wide lens or use a monopod or tripod, if I have the 70-200mm attached. Then I try to get a wide lens by August. I could really use the $900-$1000 extra dollars towards another lens.

Maybe next year, I can get the IS II.

keep an eye on the refurbs- the 70-200 2.8 non-IS had been in stock for a while, apparently now is sold out, but it may come back before May. Great way to stretch your budget a little further. 10-22 and 17-55 IS are both in stock if you want to get a wide lens now...