Help me with this decision...please!

As I've said before in my other posts, I love my Sigma 70-200mm lens. I've had it on my camera with the 1.4x TC since I bought them last month. Lately, I've noticed that I only use it on the telephoto end. So, should I sell the Sigma and get the Canon 200mm 2.8 L or not? What do you all think? BTW, I shoot a lot of my kids' sports.

Im assuming you mean get the 200mm 2.8 L to use with your TC. I would say, get a bigma or a 70-300 DO.

Yes, but only if you are also going to get Canon's 1.4x TC.

Would the Canon 200mm work with my TC or do I have to get Canon's TC? The Bigma would be too much for me to handle, I think.

Does Sigma's TC not work with Canon's 200mm 2.8 L? Maybe I should just get the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 to get that extra reach. I'm so confused!

JennB wrote:
Does Sigma's TC not work with Canon's 200mm 2.8 L? Maybe I should just get the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 to get that extra reach. I'm so confused!

The 200L is even among Canon's "L" series of lenses an exemplatory lens. I would not feel comfortable with using anything but a Canon TC between my "L" lens and Canon camera. Canon's TC are designed for use with their lenses not only optically but in regards to transmitting data between lens and camera.

Jenn, all teleconverters will work with the 200 L. The Canon tele's only work on 135mm and above lenses, and a few zooms. But the 200 L is definitely covered with a Canon or non-Canon TC.

Jenn, the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is fantastic. I too have been contemplating getting it, or the bigma (will be my 3rd bigma in 1 year haha).

I use a Tamron TC with the 200L and have no complaints about the image quality. It's a remarkable lens. I've also thought about that Sigma, as I hear great things about it. I own the cheaper, variable aperture version of it, which performs fairly well for a consumer zoom.

That's reassuring! Didn't really want to spend more money for a TC if I didn't have to.

Your 3rd Bigma??? You must have a padded bank account. BTW, Do you have any pics taken with the Sig 100-300 you can post? I'm so tempted to get this one.

Hi Liza,

Actually, you are the one that inspired me to think about getting the Canon 200mm. The pics you posted in the Sports forum taken with this lens is outstandingly sharp! It's also good to know that image quality does not suffer with the TC attached.

I have heard some great things about the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, too. I guess that's why I'm so confused. I even thought about the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, but that's just way too expensive for my taste right now. Too many choices...I want them all!

I'd keep the Sigma 70-200, Jenn. I use both the prime and the zoom when shooting field sports. Depending on your position, sometimes you need a little variety in focal length. I use two camera bodies, though, and have free run of the field and the dugouts when I shoot.

Jenn, I sold the first one I bought, then bought another one and sold it too. This tells you two things, there is a market for the bigma, the bigma is worth buying twice and possibly a third time.
I dont actually own the 100-300 yet, but check out this page for many samples

http://pbase.com …as/sigma/100-300_4_ex_hsm

I shoot a ton of sports. If you have onfield access than I strongly recommend the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It is probably the perfect sport lens.

While I completely agree with this statement, let me add that it also retails for $2200. If you're selling your work, it makes sense. If you're a soccer mom who just wants pictures of your kids, it really doesn't.

sometimes you really need the flexibility of a zoom