Youth soccer with SIgma 70-200 OS

Still not 100% convinced on this glass but since I have been away from sports so much, I am still open to the possibility that any issues I have in my keeper rate is photographer error. That said, my results have been a little inconsistent (especially with the 1.4tc attached). Still, when its good, its really good (as in giving my MkII f2.8 a run for the money good). Here are a few samples from two of my sons games this morning. Gotta love Cleveland weather...85 in February and it was snowing during both of these games today.

Exif is intact, c&c welcome as always.

1. with tc

Awesome shots!!

BTW, your website portfolio is fantastic!

mellofelow wrote in post #14346164
Awesome shots!!

BTW, your website portfolio is fantastic!

Thanks,, that is really kind of you. Appreciate you taking the time to have a look!

Nice series! That lens is pretty nice, I've used it with my d700 and it's very quick and sharp,

I have the non OS version of that lens. You're correct about hit and miss with it. It's a shame when it misses a really good shot, but when it hits - it hits nice and sharp. Nice pics - brings back a lot of memories from when my son was that age and playing soccer.

Thanks guys. Its weird going back to these ages (my oldest are 17 and 14). The toughest part is when it hits you that mathematically, you could actually be the parents of some of your kids friend's parents. 44 suddenly feels really old!

Love the kid drinking his apple juice lol. Ur pictures are really good

Windex40d wrote in post #14350418
Love the kid drinking his apple juice lol. Ur pictures are really good

Thanks Windex! That's my youngest (4.5 yrs). He's a piece of work, there's o doubt about it!

namasste wrote in post #14352839
Thanks Windex! That's my youngest (4.5 yrs). He's a piece of work, there's o doubt about it!

Great images! I took a look at your gear list and I see that you have owned several canon 70-200's in the past. Why did you decide to go with sigma and how does it compare? Thanks!

Thanks Ryan. Yeah, I've owned em all. I'd say that the MkII is head and shoulders above any which is probably no surprise. The MkII was, imo, better than my 300 f2.8 prime and as good as either of teh 135s I've owned. I sold that to use my cash a bit differently but after a bit realized I couldn't be without a 70-200 of some kind for my type of shooting so I grabbed another Canon non-IS version, since my first one was great and I never cared for the MkI IS which I only owned briefly. I felt as though the non-IS was actually better in terms of IQ. Somewhere along the line, I decided I really did want IS/OS for non sports work and decided to pick something up that had that which left the SIgma and the MkII Canon. Since the MkII was so expensive and the Sigma gets great reviews, I decided to give it a shot.

I haven't done too much with it yet but I can say this...for non-action, the Sigma is fantastic and the OS works as well, again imo, as the Canon MkII. IQ is actually very close to the Canon as well. For action, I think that when the Sigma locks on, its almost as good as the Canon MkII (I know that's saying a lot but I've owned both and I'm confident in this statement). The only issue is that with the Canon, I almost never missed a shot due to focus (obviously, I missed some but my throw away images were generally not due to focusing issues). With the Sigma, it seems that I have to time things a little better to be sure that I lock on and often, I have to shoot 3-4 frames to be sure I have a tack sharp image in the group. I also do not believe that the Sigma handles the 1.4x tc anywhere near as well as the Canon. Honestly, I don't find it handles it that great on a consistent basis which could be a problem since I do use one often. With the Canon, I could literally swing around, point, and fire and have a high likelihood of locking on (with or without the tc). With the Sigma, I have to be sure that I am locked on "well" BEFORE I need to hit the shutter to ensure I get a sharp image. I need more time with it to really be sure but all in all, I'd say that its a great piece of glass and only pales when compared to the stellar Canon MkII. I'd prefer the Sigma over the Canon non-IS and definitely over the Canon MkI. Hope that helps!

namasste wrote in post #14353474
Thanks Ryan. Yeah, I've owned em all. I'd say that the MkII is head and shoulders above any which is probably no surprise. The MkII was, imo, better than my 300 f2.8 prime and as good as either of teh 135s I've owned. I sold that to use my cash a bit differently but after a bit realized I couldn't be without a 70-200 of some kind for my type of shooting so I grabbed another Canon non-IS version, since my first one was great and I never cared for the MkI IS which I only owned briefly. I felt as though the non-IS was actually better in terms of IQ. Somewhere along the line, I decided I really did want IS/OS for non sports work and decided to pick something up that had that which left the SIgma and the MkII Canon. Since the MkII was so expensive and the Sigma gets great reviews, I decided to give it a shot.

I haven't done too much with it yet but I can say this...for non-action, the Sigma is fantastic and the OS works as well, again imo, as the Canon MkII. IQ is actually very close to the Canon as well. For action, I think that when the Sigma locks on, its almost as good as the Canon MkII (I know that's saying a lot but I've owned both and I'm confident in this statement). The only issue is that with the Canon, I almost never missed a shot due to focus (obviously, I missed some but my throw away images were generally not due to focusing issues). With the Sigma, it seems that I have to time things a little better to be sure that I lock on and often, I have to shoot 3-4 frames to be sure I have a tack sharp image in the group. I also do not believe that the Sigma handles the 1.4x tc anywhere near as well as the Canon. Honestly, I don't find it handles it that great on a consistent basis which could be a problem since I do use one often. With the Canon, I could literally swing around, point, and fire and have a high likelihood of locking on (with or without the tc). With the Sigma, I have to be sure that I am locked on "well" BEFORE I need to hit the shutter to ensure I get a sharp image. I need more time with it to really be sure but all in all, I'd say that its a great piece of glass and only pales when compared to the stellar Canon MkII. I'd prefer the Sigma over the Canon non-IS and definitely over the Canon MkI. Hope that helps!

Wow. Thanks a ton

mellofelow wrote in post #14346164
Awesome shots!!

BTW, your website portfolio is fantastic!

Absolutely! great pictures. Well rounded also! I need to get back on the ball for sure!

I loved your shots, especially of your son's expressions. Priceless! #6 reminds of that age where you have all players from both sides chasing the ball. Nice work.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate you having a look and taking the time to comment. Blessings.