Hockey-Racing-Sigma?

[RacingMoose]

Hi everyone. I've learned a lot by reading the forums here and want to thank everyone for the many informative messages. I have a Rebel XT and based on budget and the many reviews, I'm leaning heavily towards buying the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. The lens will be used mostly for shooting ice hockey and roller hockey. I'm also planning to shoot some dirt track racing. Anyone have any experience with this type of shooting and whether the Sigma 70-200 2.8 will also be good for this? Will I run into issues with the dust at the track and are their precautions I need to take for the camera and lens? Thanks for any and all suggestions!

[Alan Dye]

I use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to shoot my two sons ice hockey. To me, it works quite well. Mine's mated to a 10D, with the XT, you should be able to get some very nice photos. Just work with the settings that give you the type of shot you desire.

Good Luck!

[condyk]

I think there was guy about 3 weeks ago who bought one for similar dirt track conditions. I had one a while back and can vouch it's a very good lens and a great choice.

Personally, I don't like protective filters but I would put a high quality one on if I felt I was in hostile conditions. The Hoya Pro1 range are good.

Welcome BTW ...

[RacingMoose]

Thanks for the quick replies. Based on some other messages and reviews I thought the lens should work well for hockey. Great suggestion about the filter condyk. The dust was a concern of mine. Someone suggested I think about the Canon 70-200 F4L instead, but I'm worried about it's performance indoors and at night in the dusty lights.

[condyk]

Someone suggested I think about the Canon 70-200 F4L instead, but I'm worried about it's performance indoors and at night in the dusty lights.

I had the f4 and upgraded to the Sigma 2.8 for that exact reason ... well, to be accurate, lower light in shade and woodland areas. Problem solved.

[DavidEB]

excellent choice.

examples: one (http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/44234943) two (http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/44234944) three (http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/44078693) four (http://www.pbase.com/davideb/image/44078697)


don't know about dirt track racing, though

[BugEyes]

Yes excellent choise, at least for Hockey and motocross.
Here's one of my hockey pics from last wendesday, taken with 20D and the Sigma...
http://www.sorkin.se/aik-hif/images/AIKHIF_050928_357.jpg

[craigsinclair]

For another $300 over the Sigma you can get the Canon 70-200L f/2.8, which is one of the finest lenses out there. Sounds like you will need to use a protective filter (at least at times) and the best, least distorting filters come from Heliopan and B+W. Oh, BTW, I understand Canon rebates are going to start up soon so the difference will be even less.

[condyk]

For another $300 over the Sigma you can get the Canon 70-200L f/2.8 ...

It's well worth paying the extra because the zoom ring turns the same way as other Canon lenses. Just like that IS helps if you have hand shake, by having the zoom ring turning the same way it helps those who are a bit forgetful, or somehow lacking in sensory-motor skills.

For people with experience of all kinds of lenses from all kinds of brands well we just get used to it and don't worry for a second. The cash can be better spent elsewhere. But I understand some get very concerned about such things and if you can afford a zoom ring that turns the same way then why not?

[BugEyes]

For a mere $300 extra it must be the non IS version you are talking about. Is it worth it to get the zoom ring turn the other way?

[GSH]

For a mere $300 extra it must be the non IS version you are talking about. Is it worth it to get the zoom ring turn the other way?

Don't forget you get a nicer box with the Canon too ;)

I know which lens i bought, and would happily do so again.

The only other 70-200 i'd want is the Canon IS version.

[DavidEB]

CraigSinclair -- BugEyes & AlanDye have each posted some pretty excellent photos demonstrating use of the Sigma in ice hockey, and I have also made a contribution along those lines. (BugEyes' and mine are above, Alan's are in the sports section, just search). Perhaps you could please post your hockey photos with the canon demonstrating how much better it is?

The only lens I'd think about leaving my sigma for is the canon 135, based on Drisley's fine photos like this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=102348), but I'm not sure I can do without the zoom. Might be able to borrow one soon to find out.

[condyk]

Don't forget you get a nicer box with the Canon too ;)

I might disagree with you there Geoff. I do prefer the design sensibility of the Canon box, agreed, but the cardboard is a little too thin compared to the Sigma and so the box isn't very substantial. I had one Canon lens arrive where the box was semi crushed. Never had that with the Sigma's. Some of the L's have nice cases but all the Sigma cases again seem more protective, if less elegant, and very well padded.

It's good to forget the optics and focus on the priorities: box, which way the zoom turns, colour, how many pro's are given one, large discounts offered to rental agencies, and so on. These are the reasons people spend their money. Remember you get what you pay for ;)

[JacobPhoto]

i have actually shot with both the sigma 2.8 and the canon f4l. I firmly believe that for sports, you will be much happier with the F4L. I find it to be sharper at the longer distances (170mm-20mm) and much faster overall when focusing.

i have NOT shot the canon 2.8 or 2.8IS, but for that price range (around 700 for the sigma), i'd stick with the canon.

[BugEyes]

i have actually shot with both the sigma 2.8 and the canon f4l. I firmly believe that for sports, you will be much happier with the F4L. I find it to be sharper at the longer distances (170mm-20mm) and much faster overall when focusing.

i have NOT shot the canon 2.8 or 2.8IS, but for that price range (around 700 for the sigma), i'd stick with the canon.

I have used the Canon 4L version as well. Excellent lens but not fast enough for indoor sports like hockey.

[Alan Dye]

CraigSinclair -- BugEyes & AlanDye have each posted some pretty excellent photos demonstrating use of the Sigma in ice hockey, and I have also made a contribution along those lines. (BugEyes' and mine are above, Alan's are in the sports section, just search). Perhaps you could please post your hockey photos with the canon demonstrating how much better it is?

The only lens I'd think about leaving my sigma for is the canon 135, based on Drisley's fine photos like this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=102348), but I'm not sure I can do without the zoom. Might be able to borrow one soon to find out.

Here are a couple of mine so you don't have to go searchin'...

[RacingMoose]

Thanks for all the great replies. Based on the pics posted using the Sigma lens, the optics appear to be excellent. I'm a little surprised by the comment saying the F4L would be faster than the Sigma 2.8. Nobody else seems to feel that way. JacobPhoto, how do you find it faster? The autofocus perhaps?

It sounds like the Sigma will be just as good or nearly as good as the Canon 2.8 70-200 for shooting ice hockey, and for much less. That extra money might be useful for one either the Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 that I've read good reviews and comments on.

I know which box is best now...:lol:

[condyk]

I know which box is best now...:lol:

Glad you appreciate a British sense of irony ;)

Check www.sigma4less.com ... I'm really jealous as they have such great prices and superb feedback at www.resellerratings.com too

[BugEyes]

Some more with the Sigma, taken last night
http://www.sorkin.se/aik-skaik/index.htm

[RacingMoose]

BugEyes...Thanks for posting some more great photos. I really like the 1st 3 with the players being introduced. More and more it seems like I can't go wrong with the Sigma. Is Sigma4less the best place to purchase a Sigma lens? I saw a post where someone said the warranty is shorter is purchased through them.