Sigma 70-200 f2.8ex vs 100-300 f4ex???

[sds4kst8]

I'm bought the 10d a couple of weeks ago and in 2004 will be shooting a wide variety of sports and events, including basketball, volleyball, indoor football, musicals and plays, baseball, outdoor football, and flying (powered parachutes and ultralights). While I'd like to make a little $$ shooting these things, I'm planning on doing it mainly because my kids will be involved in these things (and I enjoy photography).

I already have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8ex and am happy with that lens, but I'm obviously going to need more zoom when I start shooting some of these activities next year.

I'm trying to determine if I'll be better off getting the Sigma 70-200 with an f2.8 or getting more zoom with the 100-300 f4? With the 1.6 crop factor the 70-200 looks like the one to get, especially if I add a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. Or, considering what I'll be using the lens for, would I be better off getting as much zoon as possible, especially since it's an f4?

Any thoughts or insight would be greatly appreciate. I can't begin to tell you how useful this forum has been in the weeks leading up to my purchase of the 10d and since. I look forward to hearing from some of you on this subject.

[CeeCee]

I have the same scenario - the 10D and a couple of L-lenses + 2 other Canon.

But again i need more tele - and going for a 300/2.8 is out of the money-question.

So therefore i checked out the alternatives, and as you i came up with exactly the same 2 sigma lenses.

I chose the 100-300/4 above the other since i read tons of reviews, and it seems to me that other have very positive opinions about this one.

Also you should not that combining the 70-200/2.8 with teleconverters you loose f-stops as well. Actually i belive that the F-factor is 2 on the 2x teleconverter. And furthermore it is not able to autofocus at certain ranges - i believe the 200 mm is only manual....

Hope it helped you to your final decision. Mine is due in a couple of days, and i look forware using it

Claus / Denmark
Bluelemon.dk

[sds4kst8]

CeeCee, great point about losing f-stops with the converters. I completely forgot about that matter!

Do you think I'm really giving up that much from f2.8 to f4, considering the wide range of types of environments I'll be shooting in? I tried a Canon 35-105 II, f4.5-5.6 at my daughters basketball game the other day just for "kicks" and that thing just wasn't fast enough or good enough to get anything decent. That's partly why I'm a little nervous about the f4.

[CeeCee]

Really it´s a matter of photo-habbits combined with your money. Would you lack the extra range for bang of a buck lens with plenty of light - and invest in the teleconverters ? It solely depends on you.

But as one stated on Freview - he got the 2.8 canon, but rarely used that f-stop. Most around the 8 or more.

So i hope that my 100-300 will do what i need it to be....I have other fast lenses, but this one is for nature, and sports (in bright light of course :-)

Let me know what you decide. Let me tell you that it beat the nikon 80-200/2.8 in test on a swedish site.