Sigma 120-300 2.8 or Canon 70-200 L IS

I shoot Vollyball, baseball, basketball, softball, swimming, and soccer, they are asking for football now...

Sounds like I need both or the 70-200 L IS maybe and the 300 2.8....but thats a but much cashola right now...LOL I have the sigma 70-200 and it nice, but not as nice as the L glass...and I am SURE its not my lack of ability though....LOL

For volleyball and basketball I suggest the 85 f/1.8

I agree. I also have used the 70-200 f2.8L quite a bit for indoor basketball, especially with strobes. Didn't use my Sigma 120-300 once for hoops, though.

However, for outdoor field sports (football, soccer, baseball, softball), the Sigma rules, and has made me 5X the original purchase price in $$$.

Dennis
http://www.pbase.com/d​mwierz45/sports_shots

I have used the Canon for shooting a few NBA games with very good results. Also have used it for Playboy type shoots and the lens did a great job although I dont know how good I did as the photographer. Can not say one way or another concerning the Sigma since I haven't used it.

Chose - 70-200.

I shoot high school football under poor lighting. Used a 70-200 2.8 last year, and bought a sigma 120-300 this year. Love the reach of the sigma. The focus may me a little slower than canon. Sigma is heavy after a few games, but managable

In theory, it's the most ideal sports zoom out there and a good copy will deliver the goods. BUT..... man, it is a beast compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Almost twice the weight (1470g vs 2600g), 105mm filter size is not exactly a 'handholder'.

Would I consider owning one? Absolutely, but I decided on a 70-200 f/2.8L and a 400 f/5.6L for roughly the same cost. YMMV.

I'm jealous , but if one were shooting sports, especially at night under lights, the 400 f/5.6 wouldn't be of much use, would it?

Tim

Bigma

I'd consider getting something more than 300mm for softball/baseball.

I'd get the Sigma (over the L?!??!?!?!??! yes).

Out to 300 @ f/2.8.... slap on a teleconverter and it goes to 420/4 and 600/5.6! How sexy is that.

The IS robs some sharpness away anyway...

//edit: Buy a monopod. =)

I always use my monopod when shooting with my Sigma. Why struggle?

After reading all these sigma 120-300 I am going to go with that as well.
I was planning on upgrading my 70-200 4 to the 2.8 IS and get the 100-400L
but I figure I am going to keep my f4 version and get the 120-300 2.8
and not get either of the other 2 lens. This lens will cover my range I want plus has a 2.8 apature and I will pick up the 1.4x tele and give me 420mm and still have a f4 so its faster then the 100-400 at 400 but focus might be a tad slower with that on but I can live with it...will save me ALOT of money buying the one lens vs the 2. Weight is not n issue I dont think..I got a good HD monopod and well I like heavy things. for me they are easier to hold.

I have to agree with most everyone here.....I have not pulled my 70-200 from my bag while shooting little League Football. Sigma 120-300 is a great lens and I love mine. Even had the league pro wanting to borrow it and he has the Canon 300mm 2.8.

When I am shooting my sons basketball team I use primes.....The light is just not good enough for the 2.8 and the gyms are not equiped with any strobes. Flash is prohibited so its take the shot as best you can and then PS it.

The Sigma 120-300 is a very very very sexy lens. I do see myself using it and carring a Sigma 2x TC in the new DG coating so I can have a 120-300 f2.8 or a 240-600 f4 lens with a TC.

Only problem is that it's really expensive and HEAVY.