Sports Lens recommendation

[FLY GTI]

I would like to go to my GF's horse shows, and sell some photos on the side. People pay ridiculous amounts of money to be at a show, and don't mind paying 20-100 dollars for a print. My bro has done this at a 'schooling shows' (kids learning to ride) and he made 2000 at one show. (A lot of time went into post processing).

What I would ultimately want is a 70-200 F2.8 L IS with a 1.4x tc. Currently my budget is low (1000 ish + credit), but if I sell a few photos....then the budget does warrant top of the line gear. Do I get the top of the line gear now? Or use what I have now? (75-300 F4-5.6, 17-85 F4-5.6 IS)

Should I get an 70-200F4L, and sell it later? I don't want to make the wrong move.
http://www.saddler.co.uk/classified/images/training/isobel.jpg
(not my photo, but an example of an experienced rider)

[dirtbiker]

They alway say; "buy right, buy once" so if you can justify it you'll probably save money in the long run!

The extra stops on the f/2.8 will make a difference when the light's poor and you (probably!) won't need to buy another telephoto again so if I were you I'd go for it.

[05Xrunner]

the new Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro II seems to be the best version of it yet with the pics I have seen. its sharp even at 2.8 just as good as the canons from what i see. even if the canon might have a slight 2% sharper image NO one ever looks at images 100% blown up so you will never notice that small difference
It sells for only $750 at sigma4less
I went from my 70-200 f4L to my Sigma 70-200 DG and never looked back and it has always delivered

[WildWolf]

you can go with the non IS version of the 70-200 2.8 for under $1000 or the Sigma version for even less money. If you were going to add and use a 1.4X regularly, I would go for the 100-400. Remember that IS does not stop motion. Good luck

[05Xrunner]

Remember that IS does not stop motion.
I was just about to edit my post to say this.

[Andy1265]

I was shooting my sons little league game the other evening with the 28-135. At first it was ok, got some nice shots, but as the sun continued to go down I had to keep upping the iso and slowing the shutter. It was a valuable learning experience and taught me that fast glass is a MUST in low light. If you can get the F2.8 by all means do it. If you can't afford the Canon then look at the Sigma which I understand is very nice and is what I will be getting.

[PhotosGuy]

All with the 70-200 f/4
Horsies" - A CMHA Equestrian Event (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=343472)

[CountryBoy]

Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX !

[gasrocks]

Depends on where you are able to stand usually and how big the arena is. The SIgma 100-300/4 on a monopod would be hard to beat. If you need longer look at the 2 new Sigma OS lenses: 120-400, 150-500. If you need shorter and/or faster (I'm thinking indoor arenas) the 70-200/2.8 would be great.

[FLY GTI]

Depends on where you are able to stand usually and how big the arena is. The SIgma 100-300/4 on a monopod would be hard to beat. If you need longer look at the 2 new Sigma OS lenses: 120-400, 150-500. If you need shorter and/or faster (I'm thinking indoor arenas) the 70-200/2.8 would be great.
I think that if I did get the 70-200/ 2.8 is and 1.4TC, it would give me the reach, the versatility, IQ, and IS (ability to use it with out a tripod, although I will get one). I have a line on the lens for 1900 cdn taxes in. Which is a good deal, in Toronto. Vistek has it for 2,269.00 + 13% taxes = 2563.97

[05Xrunner]

I think the 100-300 f4 would beat the 70-200 + TC in IQ and focus speed. Plus it would cost less

[Marbeck]

If you can afford the IS get it. You won't regreat it.