# 200mm for Sports?



## IDLaxStar (Oct 11, 2010)

Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 11, 2010)

Really depends on what sport(s).  On an APS-C sensor, it might be okay for court-sports, but I think it would too short for most field sports.


----------



## sobolik (Oct 11, 2010)

200mm is very limiting. A zoom would be much better. The 2.8 is of questionable "need" at the price level. Many sports shots have been taken with "slow" glass quite fine. I Have taken football games at night under the lights quite nicely with a 3.5


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 11, 2010)

Well i don't have much of a choice on more length. I either getting this or a tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. But this canon prime sounds like it has a lot better image quality then the tamron and faster af. I just want to know if i should go with a prime or not.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 11, 2010)

Yes
one from my old 10D @F2.8






1dmk1 iso1250 @F2.8


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 11, 2010)

I used the 70-200 for the first time during a soccer game and I found it was somewhat limiting. It was okay, but I could have really gotten some excellent shots if I had 300-400 instead of 200 as max focal length. I really want a 100-400 for daylight sports. Or maybe see how the new 2x extender performs.


----------



## oldmacman (Oct 11, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?




It will be okay, except that you will miss the zoom for framing. I have forced myself, on occasion to use my 300mm prime to shoot football. You'd be surprised how many shots you miss close to the sidelines. I prefer my 70-200 with a 1.4x TC. I picked up the 70-200 4L used for $500. While the 200mm prime will have moments of greater clarity, the flexibility of zoom is more desirable for me.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 11, 2010)

I was thinking about getting the 70-200 4L but i want the f/2.8 because I shoot high school football a lot and the horrible lights are very hard to work in so I don' think an f stop of 4 would be good enough for me.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Oct 11, 2010)

Depends on the sports, and how close you can get to the sidelines/court/field etc. My 70-200 isn't the greatest for highschool football, but if you get permission to shoot from the sideline it would be great. You could use the 1.4TC though from the stands but you lose a stop and its hard enough to freeze action under crap highschool field lights. It works great for soccer as well if you can sit on the sideline ( although mine isn't a prime and found myself shooting more in the 70-100 range, so I am sure the 200 would work if you backs up a bit from the sidelines. I found it to be too long for highschool volleyball and shot it mostly at 70mm. I think a prime 50mm would be a better range for that. Of course, this is all highschool stuff, when it comes to the pros, you probably want as long a lens as you can afford unless you are rich and have courtside/field side seats. In which case, you can just buy a whole plethera of lenses.

For things like Racing you would probably want to get a longer lens since it would usually always be in daylight anyway and there are much more safety restrictions.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 11, 2010)

I will be shooting football from the sidelines. So basically my question is should i get the canon 200 2.8 prime, tamron 70-200 2.8 or canon 70-200 4 non-is? Again I will mainly be shooting high school football from sidelines and high school lacrosse which is in daylight from sidelines.


----------



## xsouthpawed (Oct 11, 2010)

I was actually considering the 200m 2.8 prime myself.. But IMHO you'll probably find the 70-200m's versatility in zoom much more useful.  
I know.. f/4 can be a pain sometimes.  I don't know what body you use.. but you can probably boost the ISO up.  

Not too sure about the Tamron though.. does anyone have experience with its AF performance?  It's going to be something you'll really need when you're shooting sports.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2010)

For night time football, I would rather have the Canon 135mm f/2-L lens...the extra aperture speed is really nice at night. Plus 200mm is pretty "tight" when shooting from the sidelines at high school games, where the lighting is really,really poor at most fields.
The zoom really will give a lot more flexibility, but at a lot of fields, even f/2.8 will see your typical shutter speeds dropping very,very slow.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

I am about to purchase either a D40 or D50. So Derrel do you recommend i get the 135 f/2 or the tamron 70-200 2.8? Does anyone know how the af is on that tamron, thats all i am worried about with it. I heard it has awesome iq.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 12, 2010)

The Tamron 70-200 apparently has pretty slow autofocusing...the reviews of it really knock it for slow AF...I have the Canon 135 f/2...it focuses quite rapidly and surely...it's also fairly compact and light for its length and aperture. I don't really "see" the Tamron around where I live, and have not handled it personally.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 12, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I used the 70-200 for the first time during a soccer game and I found it was somewhat limiting. It was okay, but I could have really gotten some excellent shots if I had 300-400 instead of 200 as max focal length. I really want a 100-400 for daylight sports. Or maybe see how the new 2x extender performs.



The 100-400 is rubish for shooting sport, slow aperture and slow focus


----------



## gsgary (Oct 12, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> I am about to purchase either a D40 or D50. So Derrel do you recommend i get the 135 f/2 or the tamron 70-200 2.8? Does anyone know how the af is on that tamron, thats all i am worried about with it. I heard it has awesome iq.



Those are Nikon cameras why are you looking at Canon lenses


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

Sorry I meant to say 50d or 40d.


----------



## KmH (Oct 12, 2010)

Edit: I finally looked at page 2. 

Carry-on :er:


----------



## shaunly (Oct 12, 2010)

why don't you get the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

I would but I am on a little bit of a budget and that lens is a little to much for me. I might just wait and save up for it but I kind of want a lens now.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 12, 2010)

sobolik said:


> 200mm is very limiting. A zoom would be much better. The 2.8 is of questionable "need" at the price level. Many sports shots have been taken with "slow" glass quite fine. I Have taken football games at night under the lights quite nicely with a 3.5


 
It depends on the individual and what they are trying to do.

"Fine" is subjective, and what you may feel to be fine someone else may feel is not.

A 2.8 lens will provide better low light performance, as well as shallower DOF allowing better subject isolation compared to slower glass.

These are facts and cannot be disputed.

Derrel is right that usually high school games are very poorly lit. 

99% of the time you would be too far away from the subject to use a flash even if you wanted to, not to mention the fact that it is distracting to the players. 

Because of this you are stuck with the field's lighting and need to plan accordingly.

Faster glass is better for night sports shooting all other things being equal. Period.

Some very fast special purpose lenses like the 85 1.2L have garbage AF and are not suited to night sports shooting though. This is why I said all things equal, which they are not in this specific case. 

I agree that the 135L is a great lens for exactly this purpose. The only caveat is that it locks you into a focal length that may not be ideal for certain situations.

This is also why I really want the 200mm f/2 as well lol. Now to go strike it rich...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 12, 2010)

It's great on full frame for portraits


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

I think I am going to go with the Tamron 70-200 2.8


----------



## Destin (Oct 12, 2010)

I just got the sigma 70-200. Highly reccomend it. If you want to see examples of my high school football shots with it, look through these galleries. And I'm shooting on a d40, so my iso is only at 1600. It I could shoot at 3200 there would be no trace of motion blur.

Also shot these portraits with it.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 12, 2010)

Here are a few shots I did in the spring of 2006, using a 200mm prime lens. These are sharpened for newsprint reproduction, so they have a bit of "tooth".

_DSC5965_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5884_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5743_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5643_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

_DSC5856_for newsprint.jpgg.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

Oh my gosh. So many choices. I don't know what to go with.


----------



## DirtyDFeckers (Oct 12, 2010)

Only you can make that choice.... Just don't settle... If you want the zoom, then save the $ and get it.  That way, you know you'll be happy


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 12, 2010)

Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.


----------



## DerekSalem (Oct 13, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.



I would definitely say save up for Canon L glass in this case. I try to stick with L glass anyway purely because of the great weather-sealing (not really as important here, but when I'm in California I spend a lot of time on the beach and away from the house...and when it rains I have no chance of getting back to the house without getting soaked), but in this case it would be a good idea for you too.

For sports photography you need the ability to focus quickly. Since you're already somewhat hampered with using a Rebel body (in terms of focusing speed and accuracy) you want to fill the glass role with the absolute best and fastest-focusing lens possible. I have no problems with Tamron and Sigma (just sold a Tamron lens that I loved using), but they definitely will not focus as quickly as one of the Canon 70-200s. If you want to really be able to capture some of the better plays with precision...you're going to want to go Canon in this case.

On that note...I just purchased a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to replace my f/4L. $2300 gone in an instant lol


----------



## Destin (Oct 13, 2010)

DerekSalem said:


> IDLaxStar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.
> ...



Not trying to start a nikon vs canon debate here, please dont take it that way: 

But, I've shot with a nikon 70-200 vr 2, and yeah I was impressed with it's AF speed. I doubt that the canon is that much (probably not any) faster. 

I couldn't afford to buy one, so I went with the sigma 70-200 DG EX Macro hsm 2, and you know what? It's AF is almost as fast as the nikon I used. The sigma uses an ultrasonic focus motor too, so it keeps up pretty darn well. 

I highly reccomend the sigma if you are on a budget!!


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

DerekSalem said:


> IDLaxStar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah thats true. I might just have to save up for it. I will be happier in the long run that way.
> ...



I don't have a Rebel body. I am about to buy a 40d. Also Destin how is the image quality on that sigma?


----------



## Destin (Oct 13, 2010)

I absolutely love it. 

Check these out:
the last one isn't very sharp looking but its taken at iso 1600 on a d40. So factor that into it. 

I have taken about 5,000 sports photos with this since i've had it for the last three weeks. The only time the CA mentioned in reviews is when shooting a dark subject on a very bright (blown out) background. And even then it's only about 25% of the time, and easily fixed in PS or LR. 

I have no regrets on paying $800 for this lens whatsoever. 

f2.8, iso 400, 500th, 92mm focal length






f6.3, iso 200, 1/500th , 200mm





f2.8, iso 1600, 1/400th, 170mm


----------



## darkchild (Oct 13, 2010)

i use a 300mm and it's been fine with field sports like football and soccer, with certain shots i wish i had more zoom though.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

Do you guys think I should go for sharpness or faster AF when looking for a sports lens.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> Do you guys think I should go for sharpness or faster AF when looking for a sports lens.




You can have both with the 200mmF2.8L


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

gsgary said:


> IDLaxStar said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys think I should go for sharpness or faster AF when looking for a sports lens.
> ...



But I don't know if i want more versatility with a 70-200 yet.


----------



## Hardrock (Oct 13, 2010)

I personally would rather have sharper photos than a little flexibility. But... with the Canon 70-200 you can have both. Its not as sharp as the 85,135,or200mm lens but its pretty darn good.  I would save and hold out for a used Canon mk I IS f2.8(IS is not needed with sports but you may want for low light). But just my opinion.  A prime does make you more aware of whats going on and a zoom will make you a little lazy but with fast action sports the zoom is quite handy.  Maybe rent first.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > IDLaxStar said:
> ...



I use a 300mmF2.8L and never miss having a zoom, with a zoom you will zoom out and when you get home you will have to crop, i find with a prime you fill the frame, you wouldn't get this with a zoom because as they come towards you you will automatically zoom out


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

Do you guys have any experiences with renting lens online? Any cheap ones or such? I don't have anywhere local that I could rent some from.


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

There's two Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 on craigslist Orange County right now. One with the HSM and one without. both at about 650 I believe.


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

a 200mm prime is great but it shouldn't be your first telephoto option. A 70-200 is pretty much a must have for any serious/pro photographer. Save your money and buy it once.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

shaunly said:


> a 200mm prime is great but it shouldn't be your first telephoto option. A 70-200 is pretty much a must have for any serious/pro photographer. Save your money and buy it once.



Why should the prime not be my first telephoto option?


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> > a 200mm prime is great but it shouldn't be your first telephoto option. A 70-200 is pretty much a must have for any serious/pro photographer. Save your money and buy it once.
> ...



versatility


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

shaunly said:


> IDLaxStar said:
> 
> 
> > shaunly said:
> ...



Your legs make it versatile


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 13, 2010)

gsgary said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> > IDLaxStar said:
> ...



Your legs aren't allowed on the court or field and cant swim well (ocean) etc...


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > shaunly said:
> ...



Thank you .... or step back so far into the stand to get group photos


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Here are a few shots I did in the spring of 2006, using a 200mm prime lens. These are sharpened for newsprint reproduction, so they have a bit of "tooth".
> 
> _DSC5965_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
> 
> ...



Nice photos!


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > shaunly said:
> ...




He wouldn't have to go on the field or court, you wait for the action to get closer, i never had a problem before i got my 300F2.8 still got the 200 would never sell it fantastic on a 5D
ISO3200


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

gsgary said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Your example photo is useless. The guy is obviously stationary, so yea a prime is ideal here. What if you can't step back and you need to grab the whole stage? Now what? The suggestion was that if he is going to only have ONE telephoto, it's best that he get the 70-200 for it's versatility. No doubt that any telephoto prime is great but it's not ideal when you need it to do multiple things.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

shaunly said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > prodigy2k7 said:
> ...



Easy i move back a bit 





or change cameras


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

EXACTLY! you had to either *MOVE* back or *CHANGE CAMERA*. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a* BUDGET* and can only buy *ONE* lens.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 13, 2010)

shaunly said:


> EXACTLY! you had to either *MOVE* back or *CHANGE CAMERA*. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a* BUDGET* and can only buy *ONE* lens.



Yes thats why he is thinking of getting the 200mm instead of the 70-200 a 200mm prime is not a problem shooting sport, i shoot sports and print on site and don't have a problem if i need a zoom i use my 70-200F4 which is perfect for daytime shooting equestrian


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2010)

This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies. The 200mm f/2.8 is available used in the $650-$675 range (there's one for sale right now on TPF), whereas the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon zooms are fairly costly. In terms of flexibility, the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon is a fast-focusing lens with very good image quality. Sigma makes a decent 100-300mm f/4 HSM lens that is also a nice compromise on weight, price, AND focal length range.

Personally, I'd take the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma over just the plain 200mm f/2.8 Canon in terms of versatility for the most different types of sports assignments. The 100-300 f/4 is pretty handy for baseball and soccer, and handy for track and field also. It's nice to have the shorter end, the 100mm to 200mm zone, as well as also having the longer reach from 200mm to 300mm WITHOUT needing a telephoto converter.

The Canon 135mm f/2-L is fast enough that it can accept a 1.4x converter and make  a decent longer lens for many uses.


----------



## shaunly (Oct 13, 2010)

gsgary said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> > EXACTLY! you had to either *MOVE* back or *CHANGE CAMERA*. Your not going to have that luxury every single time and not everybody have the luxury of switching camera. Did you even read the OP thread? He is on a* BUDGET* and can only buy *ONE* lens.
> ...



See exactly, you already have a 70-200, so the next thing would be a 200/300 prime. You have option, where the OP does not, so the best thing for him right now is to get a lens with versatile. I don't understand how you can argue with that.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 13, 2010)

shaunly said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > shaunly said:
> ...



I agree, start with more versatile lenses, gets you a better idea with what focal lengths you can work with. Then if you want, start accumulating primes for the focal lengths you often use, and bodies to use them on.  For sports photographers, I often see two bodies, a large prime on a monopod or tripod, and a 70-200 on a body around their neck.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 13, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> Would a Canon 200mm f/2.8L II lens be good for shooting sports? I found one used for 600 bucks. Thats way cheaper then getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. What do you guys think?



To answer your question.  Yes the Canon 200mm f2.8L is a good lens for sports.  Sharp optics, fast focus.  I shoot sports.  I have it and the 200mm f2.0 and I use both. Two different beasts.  The 200 f2.8 is one of Canon's hidden gems in L glass.  Well built, sharp and cheap. Much cheaper than the f2.0L.  :mrgreen:

Is it as others have pointed out, not as versatile as a zoom, but as you pointed out the price is great.  It comes down to what you can afford or what you are willing to spend.  

I would suggest, depending on what sports you shoot, that you stick with nothing slower than f2.8 glass unless you are only shooting daytime outdoor sports.  Inside and under the lights, even at the NCAA Division 1 level f2.8 is pretty much a must.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Oct 13, 2010)

Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....

_DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com :lmao:

All this talk about 200mm f/2.0 has got me looking. Damn you guys! My wife is tired of hearing "this is the last lens I need, I promise"


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 13, 2010)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....
> 
> _DSC5854_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com :lmao:
> 
> All this talk about 200mm f/2.0 has got me looking. Damn you guys! My wife is tired of hearing "this is the last lens I need, I promise"


LOL I saw that photo but didnt notice the guys face on the right...that is LOL!


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 13, 2010)

What I was thinking though is that I will be able to get sharper better images with the 200 prime. I will have to work around it being a prime but with football being my main sport I shoot it would be easy to move around on the sidelines. I could always have myself positioned in a good place before every snap and such right?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Derrel, the expression on the face of the guy on the right is priceless here.....
> ...




Yeah...that's kinda' what the shot is 'about'...the look of the guy in 2nd place as he focuses on the hurdle ahead of him...


----------



## Chiuy (Oct 13, 2010)

I've tried the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Homecoming football game, the autofocus is so slow that I switched to manual focus. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is really fast at autofocus and incredibly sharp. I think 200mm is very limited, sometime I wish that I could of zoom in more.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 14, 2010)

shaunly said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > shaunly said:
> ...




I can argue about anything


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

gsgary said:
			
		

> I can argue about anything



Okay Gary, let's tackle the big issue that we Americans debated a few months ago: toilet paper OVER the top and coming off on the FRONT of the roll?  Or coming off on the BACK side of the roll??? 

And, what lens is best for shooting the photos of the roll of TP?

Flash, or strictly available light?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 14, 2010)

Coming off the back, 2 Ranger Qadra's, 5D and 300mmF2.8L wouldn't need a zoom because it'snot moving


----------



## table1349 (Oct 14, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> What I was thinking though is that I will be able to get sharper better images with the 200 prime. I will have to work around it being a prime but with football being my main sport I shoot it would be easy to move around on the sidelines. I could always have myself positioned in a good place before every snap and such right?



Pretty mmuch yes.  keep in mind the limitations of the focal lenth and you will do pretty well.  200mm is a bit short for across the field, especial since you need to be down the field a bit to get the action in front of you.  As for moving it depends on where you can shoot from.  I always stay of of the team area when I shoot.  Yes the team I shoot for doesn't mind if I shoot from inside their area, however I still stay out as much as possible and never enter the other teams area.  

The 200 would give you a decent focal length to start with.  The 70-200 would be better for the versatility.  I am almost always in the 70-100 range from behind the end line when it is short yardage goal to go.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Oct 14, 2010)

But with a prime couldn't you just get different kinds of shoots. Like if the play is moving closer to you instead of getting a shot of the whole runner or a shot of the player being tackled you could get a close up of just his upper body. Do you guys see what I am getting at?


----------



## shaunly (Oct 14, 2010)

IDLaxStar said:


> But with a prime couldn't you just get different kinds of shoots. Like if the play is moving closer to you instead of getting a shot of the whole runner or a shot of the player being tackled you could get a close up of just his upper body. Do you guys see what I am getting at?



I totally know what you mean. I actually love shooting primes because it "forces" you to recompose and get you more involve. Where zoom lens will kind of make you "lazy". You could always just leave it on 200mm and see what kind of shot you can get but at least there's still the rest of the zoom range for other things too :mrgreen:. Really though, there is no wrong or right decision here. If you really feel like a 200mm range is all you really need for what you do then by all mean, save some money and get that great prime. How I thought about it was, since you're limited to only one telephoto, you'd probably want a lens that can do multiple things.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies.


 
Derrel...

No love for the slow and inaccurate focusing 85 1.2 lol?

Dont worry I forgive you...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > This is the classic dilemma of prime lens versus zoom lens: the prime lens can give better image quality and or more aperture speed; ie, an 85mm lens can be a fast-focusing f/1.4 Nikon, or a fast-focusing f/1.8 Canon or Nikon; same with the 135mm f/2 primes--fast focusing and fast aperture, making lower-light stuff more easily possible with more different camera bodies.
> ...



Exactly...the 85/1.2-L's autofocusing is very,very,very slow...it's not fast enough for sports shooting to the degree that lower-priced lenses are...its focus by wire system kinda' sucks, in its own special way...


----------

