Lens comparisons

[pgosu]

Ok, now that we've solved some of my questions on my 10d, how about some help on lens selection?

I'm trying to budget for this college football season.

I've decided I need a 70-200 2.8. I can probably fit either the Sigma HSM or Canon "L" (non-IS) into the budget...but anything saved here can go to the next purchase. So the question is, to anyone who has shot with both, which gives the most bang for the buck?

Second comparison would be between the 100-400 "L" IS and the 120-300 2.8 Sigma. Not especially similar in any way, I know, but I sure can't fit both in the budget. My thinking right now is that the extra length on the 100-400 is more of a priority than the speed of the Sigma. Then again, with the 1.6x crop of the 10d, the Sigma will get in pretty close.

As far as my needs go, I primarily shoot Division I athletics...football, basketball, wrestling, baseball and golf, specifically. I'd also like to do more wildlife photography as well (hunting has always been a passion, so it makes sense).

Thanks in advance for the help.

I should probably add, my primary sports lens is the one mentioned in the other thread - a 300mm f 4.0 Sigma (non-HSM).

[CyberDyneSystems]

The "IS" in the Canon 100-400mm will help to make up a lot for its speed differnce compared to the Sigma 170-300mm F2.8 Hand help it will help a lot.

Isn't the Canon actually less expensive? Plus,. don't oyu have a Sigma 300 f/4? I'd go with the Canon in this case for sure.

As for 70-200mm f/2.8 I have not used the Canon version but i do like the Sigma. It is my "best" lens at the moment. In this case I am sure the IS "L" is nice but these lenses are so darn fast I just think its overkill.

[pgosu]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:


Isn't the Canon actually less expensive? Plus,. don't oyu have a Sigma 300 f/4? I'd go with the Canon in this case for sure.

As for 70-200mm f/2.8 I have not used the Canon version but i do like the Sigma. It is my "best" lens at the moment. In this case I am sure the IS "L" is nice but these lenses are so darn fast I just think its overkill.

Yes, the Canon 100-400 "L" IS is cheaper than the Sigma mentioned.

On the 70-200's I am looking at the Sigma or the non-IS Canon "L".

I have owned a Sigma 70-200 and it is a great lens. I'm hoping someone has used both and compare.