Zoom vs Fixed

[Oldin Sloe]

I seached and didn't really find what I was looking for. I am shooting hockey in low light, no flash arenas. I have a 1d III. I am using Canons non-IS 70-200 and a IS 300 both 2.8's. Why does is seem that I get more clear crispy photos with the fixed 300 over the 70-200 zoom. Is it the IS vs non-IS? I was under the impression that in action shots the IS is not important.
Is it the fixed lense takes better photos than the Zoom? It is to the point, I am thinking of picking up a 2.8 200mm fixed to compare to the zoom. Thoughts?

[SmartWombat]

Fixed focal length vs zoom usually will give better quality.
Particularly wide open.
Even though they are all Canon "L" series, prime is usually better.
And usually more expensive, and less flexible in rapidly changing action.

[Photo-John]

I seached and didn't really find what I was looking for. I am shooting hockey in low light, no flash arenas. I have a 1d III. I am using Canons non-IS 70-200 and a IS 300 both 2.8's. Why does is seem that I get more clear crispy photos with the fixed 300 over the 70-200 zoom. Is it the IS vs non-IS? I was under the impression that in action shots the IS is not important.
Is it the fixed lense takes better photos than the Zoom? It is to the point, I am thinking of picking up a 2.8 200mm fixed to compare to the zoom. Thoughts?

Those are both awesome lenses. Chances are, the 300 is a bit better than the 70-200, though. I wouldn't think it would be enough better to make that much difference, though. Which makes me wonder about technique. I haven't used the 300mm f/2.8 for a long, long time. But I remember the AF motor in that lens as being particularly good. With that lens you're probably also shooting from farther away, which should make it easier for the camera to focus accurately. Is the sharpness you're seeing from the 300 from the optics or focus? I'd take a closer look and maybe do some controlled tests on static subjects.

[SmartWombat]

Rob, hiring a lens is a good way to try it out in your normal working environment.

I agree with John, more testing is needed to see where the problem is.

In my experience, there's a considerable variation among my "L" lenses*.
I find my 300 L IS prime is quite a bit better than the 70-200 L IS when both are wide open.
And the 70-200 L IS far better then the 100-400 L IS.
The 24-70 L is comparable to the 70-200, with a little more chromatic aberration at the 24mm end.

In this case I don't think that IS will matter, because it won't compensate for subject movement even in panning mode (mode 2). But it will help with totally static shots.


* I had all my lenses calibrated at Canon and my bodies (1DSmkII and 1DmkIIN and 20D) all adjusted to work with the lenses.
For you with the micro focus adjustment in the 1DmkIII it may be worthwhile checking the focus and applying compensation for your lenses if necessary.

[Oldin Sloe]

Hey Guys, how have you been? John, I read your writup on the 7 from Canon, nice work. My right knee is junk, I have not been on a bike in like 6 months, it's killin me.

I will break out the tripod and do some stills to see if the same results occur.

I will read up on the focus compensation on my mkIII, remember you guys, my camera is way smarter than I am.

After I try these 2 things, if I am not happy with the results, I check with the local shop to rent a fixed 200 2.8.

Footnote: I have noticed that when shooting hockey, my results are much better when the team I am shooting wears the dark sweaters. (required hockey term for jersey). With the white ice, white boards, and white "sweaters", focus can become a problem. I have used manual as an option......with about the same results as auto. Also, my son is now playing at a AAA u16 level. Stuff happens WAY faster then when he was a bantam last year. Like him, I plan to adjust to the speed of the game and get better.

Thanks again you guys, you are always helpful.

Rob

PS. I will sort through some shots this weekend and try to find some examples.

[Anbesol]

Yeah the IS wont make a difference since you're ideal shutter speeds for this are 1/320-1/500th and faster. I would even turn the IS completely off when shooting this.

I can't imagine that it would be worth it to get the fixed 200 f/2.8, what very little difference there may be wouldn't be worth the added expense. It may have been a good supplement to the 70-200 f/4L, because you'd gain a stop, but you don't gain anything with the 200 f/2.8.

Also - what kind of focus are you using? Continuous/Single? Spot/evaluative? With as much as the hockey kids move around the continuous AF motor would be ideal here.

[Loupey]

...Is it the fixed lense takes better photos than the Zoom? ...

Focal length to focal length, a prime will generally be "better" than zooms (although, in some cases, the differences can be very small). In some instances a non-L prime will even be better than some "L" zooms at that specific focal length.

Consider that primes are lighter, faster (wider apertured), sharper, and generally more highly corrected against vignetting, distortions, and aberations because the designers have to work around a specific focal length. So if you find that you are typically using only one end or the other of any zoom you currently have, I would recommend looking into a good quality prime of that focal length.

Here is a comparison I did of the 200mm f/2.8L prime a while back:

The 200mm f/2.8L

I only wish that Canon made that prime with IS.