kids sports, Bigma or something else?

I want to pick up a good lens for shooting kids outdoor sports, little league, t-ball soccer etc.. I'm currently looking at the Bigma, and the sigma 70-200 2.8 is also on my wish list but i don't feel it will be enough zoom, even on my 60d. Is there something else I should be looking at? A friend has the Canon 400L, and its nice, but I'm worried of going prime because it limits me when I'm up close.

Thoughts, suggestions? Is the bigma fast enough on the 500 end for sports?

I am assuming that you will have good light, so what about the 100-400L since you think the 70-200 isn't long enough?

Budget?

A Canon 70-200 f/2.8 works well w/ both a 1.4x and a 2x TC, and will probably be the least expensive option for that kind of reach (outside possibly the 55-250). There's also the new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, but that's going to be $3200 when it finally starts to ship. There's also the Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6L

The bigma doesn't strike me as a good choice for sports. AF isn't the greatest and it is quite slow on the long end. In bright sunlight you would be ok speed-wise, but even so I'm not sure I would trust the AF to get the job done with sports.

The 300/4 is probably a good choice, but if you really don't want to use a prime I suppose you could go with the 100-400. Again, you will need good light, but it will do a much better job than the bigma (unless you really need the 401-500 range.)

200mm is okay for infield, too short for outfield. Your lighting conditions should be of serious consideration. One of our small fields has lighting so poor that even at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 trying to photograph anything with movement is futile. The Little League field requires ISO 3200 f/2.8 and 1/125 sec. in the best lighted places like around home plate and pitchers mound. Any other areas of the infield and SS drops to 1/30 sec. or less.

There is a reason the pros use long fast lenses at world class sporting events with great lighting.

I'd like the lens to be as easy on the budget as possible, however I don't want to sacrifice versatility or performance for a couple hundred dollars if I'm spending upwards of $2k. How does the 70-200f2.8 with the new teleconverters compare to the 100-400 performance wise? I'm assuming the 100-400 will focus faster? I already own the 55-250, but I don't think its enough reach nor do I think its going to provide the best image quality.

Buchinger wrote in post #12254757
How does the 70-200f2.8 with the new teleconverters compare to the 100-400 performance wise? I'm assuming the 100-400 will focus faster?

If you will be shooting any indoor sports too then get the 70-200 and use a 1.4X TC. But spend the money on the 70-200/2.8 II and save the money on the 1.4X II (or a quality 3rd party TC) and skip the much more expensive 1.4X III. No point to the v3 TC.

But if the sports will all be outside daytime stuff, get the 100-400L. It's better doing 200-400mm field sports work in decent light than the 70-200 with a TC. Plus it still has a huge advantage in range.

As of right now, I'm planning only daytime sports in natural light. However, who knows what might happen down the road!

I shot my grandson's first tball game this last weekend with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and thought it was a bit short. I have the pre OS Bigma and will bring that to the next game. If I was buying today I'd look at the Sigma 150-500 OS. I very seldom use the short end of the Bigma.

I used the Bigma for my great nephew's tball game and remember it working pretty well. I think with enough light you shouldn't have problems.

I have 3 kids ages 9, 7, 5. They are just getting into all the sports, outside soccer / tennis and indoors gymnastics and swimming.

Gotta say I truly love the versatility of my 70-200 f2.8 L mk II with both 1.4 and 2.0 TC's (mkII TC's, no need for mkIII's on the 70-200). fwiw I started with the 55-250 kit IS lens.

Indoors I shoot strictly w/o the TC's f2.8 really helps indoors, while bright outdoors I put the 1.4 on for soccer, if overcast I shoot w/o TC to keep shutter speed up then crop as req'd later in PP.

Yes, spent some coin, but I consider this a lifestage 10 year investment.
Priceless.

mtbdudex wrote in post #12255810
Gotta say I truly love the versatility of my 70-200 f2.8 L mk II with both 1.4 and 2.0 TC's (mkII TC's, no need for mkIII's on the 70-200). fwiw I started with the 55-250 kit IS lens.

well, sure.
The 70-200 f2.8 mk II with 1.4 and 2 converters -
a total of $3,200 is going to be more versatile than a $199 kit lens !

I've shot outdoor sports with the 50-500, and got decent results (esp if it's bright enough you can stop it down a bit), it's autofocus is more than adequate, and the OS works well enough to easily hand hold at the shutter speeds you would be using for sports.

where your going to hate either sigma long lens is if/when you start having late games, where the sun starts to go down, and the light goes. bumping the ISO helps, but by the time you compensate for the relatively small aperture, you end up with something that looks like it was shot on an iphone.

at that point, it's hard to find anything than the big white lenses

Sigma 100-300 f/4 is a good though large lens, and a good buy used. I think recently discontinued new.

Buchinger wrote in post #12255658
As of right now, I'm planning only daytime sports in natural light. However, who knows what might happen down the road!

You will end up collecting glass, as most of us have.

Get the glass you need to get the shots now, and keep adding.

So, 100-400 and then deal with indoor sports as they come up.

On the indoor front, you will get a different set of trade-offs, namely fast primes vs. Fast zooms.

S.Horton wrote in post #12256007
You will end up collecting glass, as most of us have.

Get the glass you need to get the shots now, and keep adding.

So, 100-400 and then deal with indoor sports as they come up.

On the indoor front, you will get a different set of trade-offs, namely fast primes vs. Fast zooms.

I tend to agree with this. The 70-200/2.8 II takes TCs pretty well, but the idea of buying one for the express purpose of using it with the TCs all the time for field sports in case you start shooting indoor stuff later is off. A 100-400L or Sigma 100-300/4 seems better.

If you do get into basketball or volleyball down the road, adding the 85/1.8 might be a cheap way to deal with it.

And I think the 85/1.8 + 100-400L is less overall than the 70-200/2.8 II with a couple TCs.