Lens choice - prime or zoom?

I'm in quandary mode and need some help please. I'm in England and the floodlights are not that good at the level of football I shoot, so a 2.8 aperture is crucial.

For the last few months I've been deciding on a prime, either the Canon or Sigma 300mm. I can't afford a new Canon prime and a new Sigma is a tad over what I can spend but could be pushed if I can't get a decent priced second hand one.
However, what is now confusing me is the thought of getting the Canon 70-200 II instead. I already have a 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 150-500, which, is not much use once we get to October when the floodlights come on. I also have a Canon 1.4 convertor. I currently use the Bigma on my 7D and the 70-200 on my 5D, without the convertor.

I was thinking I could put the convertor on the 7D with a 70-200 and the other 70-200 would go on the 5D or should I go for the Sigma 300mm?

I appreciate it may be difficult for many of you to offer assistance as you probably haven't experienced the standard of floodlights here in the UK!

It's about which lens would be best for low light conditions shooting football/soccer.

Thanks.

Well, straight off, your 70-200 would become an f/4 when you put the converter on it, and you say a f/2.8 aperture is "crucial". So, I would think you need the 300 f/2.8

In my opinion, the difference between 200 and 300mm is very small.
Maybe its easier to crop the image to the needed size from a 200mm shot.

Why not the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS?

The pros' go-to lens for football (soccer) is the 400/2.8. You can sometimes find the earlier models for quite a bit less than £3,000. A MkI non-IS model just failed to sell for a second time on eBay tonight at £2,195.

Madweasel wrote in post #16161516
The pros' go-to lens for football (soccer) is the 400/2.8. You can sometimes find the earlier models for quite a bit less than £3,000. A MkI non-IS model just failed to sell for a second time on eBay tonight at £2,195.

Thanks I'll have a look, I would have gone for that.

It's relisted, have a look.

Bear in mind that those older (non IS) 400 f/2.8s are hard to get serviced, I believe that Canon has stopped accepting them for service and is no longer supplying parts for them. As time goes by it will be even harder to get problems fixed, so if it goes wrong you could be left with a very expensive paperweight.

They are great lenses though, and without IS there is less to go wrong with it of course.

sandpiper wrote in post #16172688
Bear in mind that those older (non IS) 400 f/2.8s are hard to get serviced, I believe that Canon has stopped accepting them for service and is no longer supplying parts for them. As time goes by it will be even harder to get problems fixed, so if it goes wrong you could be left with a very expensive paperweight.

They are great lenses though, and without IS there is less to go wrong with it of course.

Thanks for the warning, good information indeed.