Which super telephoto?

Yes, I understand 300mm is not a super telephoto but a 400 is)

Trying to figure out what lens to save up for an purchase. I currently have a 1Dx and shoot motorsports, hockey, and cheer. I have been using a 70-200 2.8 VII for the indoor stuff and a Sigma 150-600C for the motorsports stuff but I am finding the 200mm to be pretty short on the reach. For what I've shot so far in motorsports it seems the vast majority of my photos were in the 500mm range, which would coincide with what I saw on the prime lenses from the credentialed shooters. However, I think 500mm would be too much reach for indoor use plus I need the 2.8 for cheer.

So it would seem as though my options are either a 300 2.8 or a 400 2.8, but not sure which is best for Hockey, and is one too much reach if I happened to pair it with a 7DII?

So I would consider picking up a;
300 2.8 IS V1
300 2.8 Non IS
400 2.8 IS V1
400 2.8 Non IS V2 (I know nothing about the history of the 400 line though and what years they made the non IS versions.)

Given my limited budget the 300 would make more sense as the 400 IS V1 seems to run about $1500 more than a similar 300.

Now for the tougher part, for something like HS or college sports where you can get closer to the field, would you choose the 300 or 400? (Assuming night time as I have the Sigma for sunny days)

Help me be less confused please.

300mm f2.8 IS is more versatile for me. Had it along with the 500mm f4 when I was using birds and sports. For motorsports do you really need fast lens? I don't shoot it so don't know much but I would expect IS would be handy for panning shots. Maybe 1.4xTC on the 300mm f2.8.

Thanks for the opinion. Another lens that I hadn't thought much about was the Sigma Sports 120-300 2.8. However I don't believe that it is quite as fast to focus as the Canon primes nor do I believe it is quite as sharp. This just based on comparisons I have read, not actual real world opinions.

I used to have much older sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and it was crap in AI servo. The newer OS ones (sports as well as non-sports models) are pretty nice.

For budget limited on an APS-C and full frame, I would think the 300 F2.8L IS would be the way to go, with TC's.

But, the latest Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS would be really great for the versatility, especially on APS-C, where you may need less reach sometimes depending on your position. But, if you're finding 200mm to be too short (on APS-C? or full frame?) then maybe 300+ is the way to go. Either way, I think the 300mm would be better than the older, heavier 400mm for this.

Very best,

I've owned all of the lenses listed in the original post as well as an early Sigma 120-300 lens. I would stay away from the earlier non-IS models as the price difference isn't worth the risk of dealing with a repair and the parts no longer being available.

If you shoot more outside than inside, I think it is worth saving the extra $1K-1.5K for the 400/2.8L IS. It is a tremendous lens.

If you shoot more inside than out, I'd rent the latest Sigma 120-300/2.8 to see if it met your performance expectations. If not, I believe the 300/2.8L IS is one of the best values in lenses right now at $2.5K or less for a clean, used copy.

My own experience is I use the heck out of the 400/2.8L IS II for field sports and the 70-200/2.8L IS II for indoor sports with the 300/2.8L IS II as a close second.

the price differential isn't even a thousand dollars when deals like this come along -- $3,300 net for a 400/2.8L IS
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/15134​64

bobbyz wrote in post #18474778
I used to have much older sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and it was crap in AI servo. The newer OS ones (sports as well as non-sports models) are pretty nice.

I'll jump in here having owned an older 300 f/2.8 non-IS Canon as well as the gen 1 Sigma 120-300 and currently own the newer Sigma 120-300 OS version. For the older two, there was literally no comparison, Canon ate Sgima's lunch, all day, every day. The new Sigma is a totally different story. Its contrasty and very very sharp with no noticeable AF drawbacks in terms of both speed and accuracy. I was VERY skeptical about owning the Sigma again but I really think they got it right this time. It takes the tc well too and you get the zoom versatility. I'm not saying I wouldn't love a Canon 400 IS but I really don't think you'd be disappointed at all with the Sigma and I'd imagine being able to get to 420 at f/4 would work fine for motorsports since its outdoors.

Well I decided to go with the 300 2.8 IS as I got a really good deal on one that looks near new. (original shipping box even) I'll use it for the next year and if I really need more versatility then maybe I'll rent the Sigma 120-300 and compare the two side by side. Worst case scenario I sell the 300 for about what I paid for it.