Sigma 100-300 F4 too long for Cycling/Tri/Marathons?

[Erich in Az]

I've been tearing my hair out trying to decide on a lens for shooting cycling, marathons and Tri's. I've played around with my 55-250, but it just doesn't seem to focus fast enough to keep up with the bikes and I'd like a little better than F5.6.

My budget is less than a canon 70-200 2.8 (especially the IS), and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 worries me with the reports and examples of softness at 200.

We have an abundance of light here in Arizona, and although the 2.8 would be nice, I think the Canon 70-200 F4 (non-IS) is an option, as is the Sigma 100-300 F4 I'm just worried about the Sigma being too long. The 100-300 doesn't seem to have the focusing issues I hear about with a lot of the Sigmas so I feel better about it.

Thoughts?

Thanks

[jamesb84]

I use the Sigma 70-200 and used to have the 100-300. I've not had a problem with this supposed softness (or if i have, I've not noticed it) then again, i've not used it too much at the long end.

I'd go for the 70-200 personally, even though its a little shorter. The f/2.8 wide open is good for bokeh and will let you get some nice effects. You can always speed up the shutter speed and lower the ISO speed.

I was always wishing for the extra stop if the weather changed...or it got dark.

James.

[DDCSD]

The f/2.8 will let more light in to allow for faster and more accurate focusing as well.

[Erich in Az]

Well, I ended up going with a used (Condition E) Sigma 70-200 2.8 Apo Hsm from Adorama for $499. I've heard of some issues with the Sigma's, but I've also read that a lot of people are very happy with them. I was tempted to go brand new, but everything I read seems to point to this 1st version ( and non-macro) being the most trouble-free and sharpest of the 4 versions. Worst case I'm out the shipping if I have focus issues.

I'll test it pretty thoroughly when I get it and see how it does. After my trouble with an eBay Canon 70-200 I'm a little nervous, but I feel better with it coming from Adorama than an eBay individual.

With the money I saved I also picked up an Opteka BG with 2 batteries. I know it's not the Canon, but overall the reviews are favorable and the price is right. Last time out I ended up running low on battery power and had to use my inverter in the car to charge it, so hopefully it will help. I also think it will also help with comfort and balance with a bigger lens hanging off the XT.

Yay! :D

[DDCSD]

Congrats, that sounds like a great price.

[namasste]

Congrats, that sounds like a great price.
I was thinking the same thing. VERY good price. Enjoy! I think you'll find that the lens will perform well with a 1.4tc attached as well so if you do find you want some more reach, don't be afraid to give one a try.

[Dan-o]

I don't know why everyone thinks you need something long for cycling and running. These are some of the few sports were you can actually reach out and touch the competitors. I've found cycling is best shot with a mid range and a flash.

Don't get me wrong I do use my 70-200 and 300 also, but most are shot with the 24-105 and 580EX.

You will be happy with the Siggy I'm sure.

[cwood]

I don't know why everyone thinks you need something long for cycling and running. These are some of the few sports were you can actually reach out and touch the competitors. I've found cycling is best shot with a mid range and a flash.

2 reasons for me
1. A long zoom like the 70-200 gives you time to react in a crowd. If there's only one or two people coming towards you then you can shoot them with whatever lens you want but in a Marathon with 20,000 runners you can pics some people up from far away and get others closer to you if you missed them in a crowd
2. At 50mm or less on a crop sensor, if you're shooting from a low position, the rider has to get REALLY close before they can fill the frame. At 15mph the opportunity to take the picture will be gone really fast. Plus if the rider is not right next to the curb you will have to shoot them from the side if you want them to fill your frame.

[Dan-o]

I understand its purpose, but I've read at least three threads were people starting out with there first lens and didn't have the money thinking they needed a 70-200 for these sports.

[Erich in Az]

I played with shooting a Tri last year using my 55-250 and found the focal length just about perfect for how I wanted to shoot which is why I wanted to go with a 70-200 or 100-300. I like being able to frame them from a distance and seperate a couple of them in the group as they come at me and the zoom range allows for that. I tend to prefer head on shots or slightly angled, but not full side shots. Just my preference I guess.

I decided to look for a different lens for this type of shooting as I had a lot of trouble with focusing speed on the nifty-two-fifity and being able to keep up with the cycling subjects as they moved toward me. It was hunting quite a bit. Lighting was a bit of an issue as well (strong shadows from trees with a bright background) so I was doing some fill-flash with my 430EX to help stop motion a little plus I tried some panning too, but it just magnified the problem with focusing.

All said I had a very low number of keepers and even those were a stretch. Shots from that are at http://www.gilaphotos.com/galleries/Events/2008%20Holualoa%20Tinfoilman%20Triathlon/ if you want to check them out. Practice will help, but I'm hoping the faster focusing and extra 2 stops will help as well.

[Erich in Az]

Well, I finally got the Siggy, and it does front focus a bit. Trying to decide if I will see it in the real world. I started a thread in the lens forum about it. I welcome any input you sports folks have.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6969353#post6969353

Thanks