I have a Canon M50 MkII.
I do sports photography at my school which means indoor and night games. Our facilities are pretty well lit, and I've gotten some adequate shots with the EF-M 55-200 f removed link lens.
Of course, I want a better low light lens, and I can take an EF lens with an adapter. I'm looking at the Canon EF 70-200 lenses which have different max aperatures. Of course, the higher the f stop, the more affordable the lens.
Should I sell a kidney to get the f removed link , or would an f/4 get better results than what I'm using?
As a follow up question, there is the EF 80-200 f removed link , but it doesn't seem to have image stabilization. Do I need image stabilization if I can shoot at 1/500th?
Thanks much.
Good question - moving to an f/4 lens would get you an extra stop of light (4 vs 5.6) on the long end, which at the same shutter speed would let you cut your ISO in half. Moving to the 2.8 lens is another stop, which would let you cut it in half again (or increase your shutter speed).
Regarding stabilization, at 1/500th you should be fine without it at 200mm. If you see blur in your images at that setting, it's likely because 1/500th isn't fast enough to fully freeze motion in some faster sports (which may be what you are doing for).
Bottom line - if cutting your ISO and/or increasing your shutter speed from what you are currently doing would be a big benefit, then those other lenses would really help. If you are happy with the settings you are currently using, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference (although it's also true that the image quality of those lenses would be better).
Hope that helps!