lens help

[greeneyes1976]

I am looking to change lens and i need some explanation or some more details because i am not that informed and don't understand some of the more technical aspects and i do not want to make an uninformed decision.

I shoot with canon 40d and I shoot my son's little league football during the date and my Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG has served well no issues or complaints because I shoot during the day. Well I am looking to upgrade and shoot more night action, for the little leauge superbowl.

I was looking at Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM and it retails at B&H for $1,49.00 after instant savings, but reading the reviews it says it is not the IS version.

Here is were I get confused what is the IS version, can some one please break it down for me?

I see Sigma has a similiar lens for less and the reviews are good on it too but is it worth more to get the Canon I mentioned above.

Thanks for any and all help I would really appreciate it.

April

[Kalrog]

IS = Image Stabilization. That is something that can help reduce camera shake and allow for slower shutter speeds and still get a sharp picture. If your only goal with this is sports, then the IS makes little difference because you are going to want shutter speeds at least 1/250 and probably 1/500 where camera shake is a non-issue. But it will limit what else you can hand hold the lens for. The only downside of having IS is the cost.

I can't comment on the differences between those specific lenses though. I do know a lot of folks at my High School football use Sigma long lenses though.

[greeneyes1976]

Thank you kalrog, I just realized is=image stabilization, I should have googled before asking something that I should have known.

So when you say they use the sigma are you referring to the 70-200 2.8, are they using them at night?

[rockpics]

IS stand for image stablization. An IS lens is equiped with a motor and a gyro to counter camera shake due to holding the lens in your hands instead of using it on a tripod. An IS lens can be used hand-held at lower shutter speeds than one without it.
The old rule of thumb says that a 200 mm lens should be used at shutter speeds no lower than 1/200 sec. With IS you can hand-hold the lens at lower shutter speeds, but not too low. IS helps you get sharp pictures in dim light.

edit
I'm a slow poster. I see you already have an answer.

[MRCPix]

if you use a monopod(which I always use at night) then you don't really need IS. I shoot a lot of youth sports and my lenses do not have image stabilization. I have used both canon and nikon equipment.
This is for sports photography.

[Kalrog]

Originally Posted by greeneyes1976

So when you say they use the sigma are you referring to the 70-200 2.8, are they using them at night?

That one among others. Just a general statement that enough people I see trust Sigma in this capacity. I haven't invested in a low light/long lens yet, but the Sigma 70-200 is on that list for me.

And yes, at night. The games usually start off "daytime" but end "nighttime". Especially since the time change.

[toverman]

Wow, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is that much now? Glad I got one last year before the prices went up so much. I think I paid $1,100 after an instant rebate. It has been worth every penny. I don't have any Sigma lenses, but some have gotten great results from them, others have been disappointed.

[ronocnikral]

the yen is mighty right now. the monopod definitely helps and is a cheap alternative to the IS right now. the 70-200 w/ IS is up over $1800 right now!!

i would suggest finding a used copy. i don't own any sigma lenses, but i have read that some are better than others. their 50 f/1.4 for instance and their 70-200 are good examples of the better lenses, from what i've read. thomas owns a siggy 70-200..

[venchka]

Monopod for sure.

Sports shooters help us out. Is a 200mm lens going to be long enough for Little League? 2nd base? Outfield? I'm thinking no, but I don't do baseball. What say Y'all?

[Richard DeYoung]

I shoot high school baseball with a canon 70-200L non IS lens and with the addition of a 1.4 TC have found it long enough and sharp enough to capture virtually every shot I need. As far as using a Sigma lens I find the qualitity as good as the canon L series. Less money but just as sharp. I guess its where you want to put your money.

[venchka]

OK. Add the cost of the 1.4 TC to the cost of the lens. Plus a monopod.

Big Dog is right: Photography is not for the faint of wallet.