p.2 #1 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
fraga wrote:
OP, keep in mind there is a noticeable difference in weight between the two sigmas.
The original OS is already a heavy lens but certainly handholdable for an extended period of time.
The newer Sports version becomes can become a burden after a little while, depending on your physical abilities.
I have handholded it for quite some time (the before mentioned karate event) but it certainly wasn't a pleasant experience. A monopod would probably be a good suggestion, if that is your intendend use.
Also, on a side note, I'm pretty sure the 120-300 with a 1.4x tc is sharper (and has better colors and contrast) than the 150-500.
Later tonight, at home, I will look for some more pictures.
The 300 2.8 IS primes from Canon weight less than even the original Sigma 120-300, never mind the new ones. Of course using a 300 2.8 IS only would put the OP in a bit of a bind for basketball though .
I think the 300 2.8 IS are: 2350g, 2550g (II, I) while the sigma are 2600, 2950 and 3300 or so.
p.2 #2 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
For U8 soccer and Mustang-level baseball, a 1.4x TC on your existing excellent 70-200mm lens will work quite sufficiently. Their pitch sizes are a lot smaller than teenage/adult and the speed of the action is very manageable. The zoom alone will suffice nicely for basketball provided the lighting is halfway decent.
This will serve you well until about U10-U11 when the field sizes expand and the pace of action picks up some. By then perhaps you will have even better lens choices and maybe a larger budget.
p.2 #4 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
You mentioned U8 soccer. This is still most likely played on a reduced field and the 70-200 plus TC is more than enough at this level. The issue arrises when moving up to a full sized field. The reach (280mm) is still limiting and if you are not shooting in bright conditions the resulting Ap of f/4 can also tug at the need for higher shutter speed. Obviously the ISO capability of your 5D3 will help to compensate here.
Having shot soccer for more than 14 years, if you plan on continuing to shoot soccer into high school or beyond, the need for fast glass in less than well lit conditions becomes a necessity. Combined this with the ability to reach mid-field action and the 120-300 + TC (resulting in f/4) IMHO is less than ideal. You'll discover the need to crop a fair amount on high ISO images which marginalizes the output. I've shot the 120-300 under these conditions with some good results but not near the level and quantity the 400 2.8 provides. You can, however compromise as the light leaves by removing the TC and just wait for the action to get a bit closer.
If soccer is in your blood, keep the 70-200, maybe add a used 300 2.8 and when able upgrade that to the 400 2.8.
BTW: you will need a second body and IMO, one with higher FPS.
.