Ok for those of you who know your stuff here maybe you can offer a little help/advice. I just recently purchased the 70-200 F4 L IS because everyone and their mother thinks these are the best lenses known to man. I have used it mainly for Water Polo photography which has to be some of the most challenging out there. Light conditions, reflection off the water, high speed action and water splashes that cause havoc with auto focus are tricky enough. I have shot at least 5-7 games with the new lens and I am not seeing a huge difference between that and my $100 75-300. What am I doing wrong? I will try and post some pics of the two for comparison.
Thanks guys!

OMG a GEAR POST!!!!!

I just recently purchased the 70-200 F4 L IS because everyone and their mother thinks these are the best lenses known to man.

Maybe in the wedding forums, around here we all think its the 200/2 IS/VR Anyhow for sports you would have been better off with the 70-200/2.8 (Non-IS). F4 is still slow for indoor action.

Outdoors it will be fine. Indoors you'll want an F/2.8 version as your camera will AF much better with that...

Yes Canon. sOrry all the Polo out here is outdoors. Forgot to mention that. It's not necessary the AF, I just expect the 70-200 to significanlty outperform the $100 lens. I have raised the ISO a little and it does improve but maybe I am expecting too much under poor lighting conditions. The conditions change from full overhead sun to complete shade. Thanks in advance guys.

what you usually pay for with better glass is better performance wide open, bigger glass, more resistance to flare, better colors in the face of glare....

I would have bought the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS - you are outside and the f/2.8 will focus more accurately and give you shallower dof. The IS is only useful to stop your hands from shaking. A monopod does the same thing.

Its one of the sharpest lenses (well zoom anyway) known. But MTF charts and sharpness tests on a tripod don't matter much if the shot's not in focus. Like Luke and Joe said, the f2.8 is going to give you better shutter speed and more accurate focus for action sports. All the theoretic sharpness in the world doesn't help if the shot's not in focus or the shutter speed is too slow.

Hard to really begin to even suggest what might be going on without seeing images.

Either way, this comment is what makes me wonder if this is much an issue with the lens as the user:

"I have raised the ISO a little and it does improve..."

I don't mean to judge the OP without seeing images, but that comment makes me wonder if this is really a "lens" issue.

It might very well be Scott. I am not an expert on any of this so assume nothing. I guess my point is that all things (settings) being equal, the 200 only slightly outperforms the 300. At more than 10x the price, I just worry that I am doing something wrong or not using the lens to the full potential. Any suggestions are appreciated. I will post up some examples when I can.

the supernige wrote:
I guess my point is that all things (settings) being equal, the 200 only slightly outperforms the 300. At more than 10x the price, I just worry that I am doing something wrong or not using the lens to the full potential. .

Well you could either have a steller 75-300 or a not so good 70-200 L.
What shutter speeds/fstops are you using? you say that even outdoors the light is sometime poor. well that could point to the need for a 2.8 lens (or faster) . but also be aware that your lens is f4 which wont allow your 40D to use its higher precision AF sensor which a 2.8 lens will no matter what Fstop you actually shoot at.

as soon as you can post some examples i'm sure folks around here could help get to the bottom of it

ok here is one from the 300

	http://www.flickr.com/photos/22030491@N04/4072676552/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22030491@N04/4072676552/

Those links are bad, we need samples.

By the way, I've found my 70-200 f/4 to very fast and accurate in terms of focus, no worse than my 200 f/2.8.

I can post it for you here...

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/5.0
Focal Length: 220 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

70-200 is still short for water polo, I usually shoot it with a 300 f2.8 at least, usually with a converter on top of that. You should be shooting outdoors, so SS shouldn't be an issue. The shot you posted looks fine, i'd like to see something from the 70-200.

here are a few of my shots from water polo, though they are taken with a D3, I think it gives a look of shooting tight and adding a different perspective to shooting water polo:
Shooting high and slowing the shutter speed can give you a different look:

Shooting low on the deck too:



a longer focal length, change of angle, and shooting at the proper time will give you better results. Also remember that when water is on their face, their face's may look softer than they really are.

Thanks guys I really appreciate all the help and suggestions. I will try and get a 70-200 shot up tonight.

Andrew: I have taken so many with different setting that I too have gotten some cool blurred motion shots as well. I am after technically correct shots here so I can get some keepers. Do you prefer an outdoor SS over others?

Ok here is one with the 70-200

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22030491@N04/4073340022/

the supernige wrote:
Thanks guys I really appreciate all the help and suggestions. I will try and get a 70-200 shot up tonight.

Andrew: I have taken so many with different setting that I too have gotten some cool blurred motion shots as well. I am after technically correct shots here so I can get some keepers. Do you prefer an outdoor SS over others?

Outdoor events usually allow for a higher shutter speed at lower ISO's, for water polo, I personally love the water frozen and coming off the ball and players.

Thanks for the advice Andrew. I will try just that and see how I do this weekend. As you can see, I am really trying to improve the quality of the shots.

remember, tight is usually right... if that makes sense. In sports photography, isolating your subject should be your goal.

Cool, that is usually my philosophy as well. I will post up a few others and see what you guys think I should work on.
Thanks!

ok a few more...