A tough decision

[Sef Hafez]

Alright, I mainly shoot soccer, football, baseball, and other sports for my school. The only gear they have are about 15 20D's with stock lenses so I have to use my own stuff. All the games that they play are at night, and my 70-200 F/4L just isnt cutting it. I have heard a lot about people selling ther4 F/4L's for the F/2.8L and regretting it. I just dont see how. I also dont see the need in having both the 2.8 and the 4. If you were in this situation, would you sell the f/4 and get the f/2.8? Or keep it. Are there any bad thinngs about the 2.8?

[Stephen]

Sell the f4 and buy the 2.8L. The only downside to the 2.8 is the size and weight compared to the f4.

[tjavery]

You should evaluate the shutter speeds you're getting while you shoot with the f/4, and then ask yourself if one extra stop will make a difference. The f/2.8 version is only one stop brighter.

For example, if you've been getting 1/60s required shutter speeds to get your shot at f/4, then the f/2.8 will allow you to shoot at 1/120s.

I'm not a sports shooter, but I believe that you'll want shutter speeds anywhere between 1/160s to 1/320s to properly stop action.

Regarding your question about keeping both lenses (should you decide to get the f/2.8), I'd say no. Unless you were really darn serious about photography and didn't mind the large investment in equipment (because each lens has its own special advantages for certain types of photography), I wouldn't keep the two.

It also depends on what you intend to shoot. If you're into sports, action, and shooting any type of moving subject, then the f/2.8 version is probably the one you want to keep.

As a side note- both lenses are superb optically and are also built very well. Either lens is a fine choice.

[David Price]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L, great lens. I also have the 580EX, great flash. Why not buy the 580Ex and continue to use your 70-200 f/4? That'd save you a bunch of bux plus add a different tool to your kit. Just a thought.

[mdurisseau]

I agree...selll the f/4, and get the 2.8...if I might add, there is a little more flexibility (IMHO) with the 2.8 in terms of lighting situations...

[wadebarker]

I would get the 2.8, the flash will only slow your shooting and add problems for you. The f/4 is nice but it just doesn't cut it for low light. I've never seen any sharpness problems with my copy. Look for a used 2.8 without IS on eBay, TPF, or sportsshooter perhaps...I would stay away from the Sigma, some of my coworkers have had build quality issues with them.

[Sef Hafez]

I am mainly a sports shooter.... I shoot at 1/200 and ISO 1600 right now... but the 1/200th just isnt enought. I need to shoot at about 320+. I have tried flash, but it bounces off their white uniforms and makes a nastey color in the picture. After I get my 50-500 (hopfully I go through and buy it), I'll sell my f/4 and get the 2.8. I just bought it f/4 a month ago... how much could I resell it for? It's PERFECT.. I take care of my stuff. I also have a Canon UV haze filter with it.