I've been looking for a sports lens. I do outdoor field sports like soccer and track and also might start doing some indoor sports, occasionally, so they aren't that important. Currently I am not shooting night games, but some late afternoon games. I also do random casual shooting here and there as well. I have been looking for a canon 70-200mm F2.8 and I just found out about the sigma 100-300mm F4. Which do you think would be a better lens? I am shooting a 40d btw. Thanks
The additional 100mm reach of the Sigma sure helps when it comes to shooting field sports, then again f/2.8 is a huge advantage over f/4 and having 70-99mm is also a plus, specifically indoors. Depends on what your planning on shooting more really.
Having not used the Sigma first hand I couldn't tell you, but from those who use and own it and according to reviews the AF is quite good. As for using your nifty indoors in low light you may want to consider the 85/1.8 instead--the 50/1.8's AF will not cut it, especially for action sports.
I have the Sigma 100-300 f/4, and I've rented a few copies of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The autofocus speed is similar...the Canon tends to hunt less frequently in low light, which I suspect is due to the larger aperture. Also, the Sigma has the usual Sigma focus accuracy issues...it was horrible on my 20D, but now I have a 40D and it's fine. Both lenses have similar sharpness wide-open...contrast edge goes to Canon, but nothing you can't fix in post-processing.
The difference really is how frequently you need what focal length. I almost always need 300mm and occasionally 400mm, and I very rarely take action shots in low light, so the 100-300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC was a no-brainer. If you don't frequently need the 200-300 range, the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you an extra stop (which makes a HUGE difference for sports), and you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 280mm at f/4 when necessary.
I don't use a tripod for action shots (mostly airplanes, but I've shot a couple of company softball games on it)...it's fine if you can get good shutter speeds. Definitely handholdable weight. I actually take the tripod collar off most of the time...I only put it on when I'm using the lens for night landscape shots (when, obviously, I'm on a tripod). Obvious advantage to Canon if you get the IS version, but that may or may not be in your budget.
Also, don't buy the Sigma new...B&H wanted $1100 last time I checked, but I got mine (a non-DG) used for $625 on B&S...
The 100-300 is awesome for what I do with it, but it's not Canon so there are certainly trade-offs.
YA, I was planning on getting the non IS. Yesterday there was a 100-300 on the B&S for $550, which really looked like a great deal, unfortunately I think it has been bought, but I'm going to keep looking for it.
I used to have Sigma 100-300mm f/4. It is a sharp lens, and zoomed in enough, it also blurs the background very well, and the bokeh is nice. But, I like the 70-200mm f/2.8 so much more. I recently shot some photos for a colleague of mine and they came out really well ... the background-blur of f/2.8 is pretty good. I also had the IS version and I used that for indoor shots of some dance performances at our university and the folks loved it. I shot at ISO-800 and the pics cleaned up really well.
I've now decided that the 70-200mm f/2.8 L will be with me for a long time.
70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC will be the most flexible option for you. Indoors, f/4 is pretty much a no-go, and outdoors, the 70-200 w/TC will bring the 200 out to 280, which is practically the same as the long end of the 100-300. The AF speed, sharpness, and overall utility of the 70-200 f/2.8 are great for what you're looking to do.
Ya, since I am on a very limited budget ($800) a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x tele converter is a little much at the moment, but if I had a little more money that's probably what I would get.
I found with the 1.4TC I stopped down the 70-200 2/3 stop for sports. The Sigma may be better wide open at f4.
But the 70-200 is the starter sports lens and that is probably what you should buy. The 80-200 is just as sharp. Not sure how AF compares. The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is an interesting indoor/out sports lens but is in a different price range.
Indoors I would go with the 80 1.8 before the 100 f2. The "classic" indoor sports lenses are the 80 1.8 and the 135/2.
