Ok I have less than $700 to spend on a zoom

You could find the sigma used for under $700 on FM, I see one there every week to two weeks.

FM?

Fred Miranda, a forum.

Watch out with Sigma4less. Good prices and good dealer, but you get slaugtered in the shipping part. Still very competitive in the low end, but just keep that in mind.

Sigma's 70-200 2.8 and 100-300 4, are probably your best bets though.

the 100-300mm sounds good but it give me no mid-range. The Sigma is out of my price range. I might just have to stick with either the 70-300mm IS USM or the 70-200mm f/4L.

If you're gonna build a bag that won't need replacing, it's best to go for the gold the 1st time around instead of reselling at a lower price and picking up your original wishlist later. Saves more money in the long run. Besides, the Sigma's not that much more than the 70-200 f/4 if you save a little... Just my 2 cents.

mxwphoto wrote in post #2166190
If you're gonna build a bag that won't need replacing, it's best to go for the gold the 1st time around instead of reselling at a lower price and picking up your original wishlist later. Saves more money in the long run. Besides, the Sigma's not that much more than the 70-200 f/4 if you save a little... Just my 2 cents.

He's right. You can't effectively and consistently shoot sports with a slow lens. Be patient, save some more money, and buy something that you won't have to replace later.

ChrisBlaze wrote in post #2166032
the 100-300mm sounds good but it give me no mid-range. The Sigma is out of my price range. I might just have to stick with either the 70-300mm IS USM or the 70-200mm f/4L.

You really should save up a little more then, especially if you are trying to do sports. It shouldn't take too much longer to get to 1k range in savings, i would think. The 70-200 f/4 is a good midrange, but if you want longer, you should then invest in a lens for that like Sigma's 100-300 f/4.

Agreed. I'm building my whole setup around fast lenses because I will be shooting in less than optimal light and fast action.

Save up just a few more weeks for a faster lense.

Canon 70-200L f4

liza wrote in post #2168830
He's right. You can't effectively and consistently shoot sports with a slow lens. Be patient, save some more money, and buy something that you won't have to replace later.

I guess all those photogs with 400, 500, 600mm f/4s on the sidelines at NFL games are just wasting their time !. You can CERTAINLY shoot soccer with a 70-200mm f/4...I do it all the time.

JNunn wrote in post #2172234
I guess all those photogs with 400, 500, 600mm f/4s on the sidelines at NFL games are just wasting their time !. You can CERTAINLY shoot soccer with a 70-200mm f/4...I do it all the time.

first of all 400 f2.8 is fast and not f4, while 500 and 600 are both f4 still they are fast enough because they are primes not zooms, and i think 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 are most common used lenses in sports, 500 is mostly for wildlife, 600 can be for both but i think it is for wildlife as well.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=232088

I believe the sigma that is being referred to, is listed here for $700

The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens. It is well worth saving your money for. It has the capability of producing "WOW' images. I REALLY enjoy mine. It has great bokeh. If you want fast you could get a couple primes. Canon 85mm 1.8 and Canon 100mm 2.0 and you will be under the $700.00 mark. You will also have excellent IQ.

JNunn wrote in post #2172234
I guess all those photogs with 400, 500, 600mm f/4s on the sidelines at NFL games are just wasting their time !. You can CERTAINLY shoot soccer with a 70-200mm f/4...I do it all the time.

Most photographers use the 300 or 400 f/2.8. During day games, they might use a 400 with a 1.4 tc, like at baseball.

But there's a difference between shooting f/4 on a 200mm lens at a soccer game and a 400mm lens with a 1.4 tc on it at a soccer game, as far as isolating the subject.