I have a Canon M50 Mk II. I do some sports photography at my school which means night and indoor games. Our facilities are well lit, and I've gotten adequate shots with the EF-M 55-200 f / 4.5 to 6.3.
Since I can take EF lenses with an adapter, I'm looking at the...
Canon EF 70-200 f / 2.8,
the Canon EF 70-200 f / 4,
and the Canon EF 80-200 f / 2.8.
So, here are my questions:
Should I sell a kidney to get the low aperture lens, or will the f / 4 be distinctly better than what I'm using?
I believe the 80-200 lens does not come with image stabilization. How important is that if I'm shooting at 1/500th?
Thanks!
I've been away for a couple of weeks, and am now checking in.
Thanks so much for the detailed response.
For your Canon M50 Mk II and school sports photography, getting a faster lens like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 would definitely be a big upgrade, especially for night and indoor games. Compared to your current 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3, even the f/4 version will perform noticeably better in low light and give sharper images. If budget allows, the f/2.8 is ideal, but the f/4 is still a strong improvement without the heavy price tag. Image stabilization (IS) matters less at 1/500th shutter speed, so the older 80-200mm f/2.8 without IS can still work well if you can find a good copy. Overall, if you shoot a lot indoors, the f/2.8 is worth it, but if cost is a concern, the f/4 is still a very good upgrade.