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

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.

Those are played in the daytime or under lighting condtions much better than most of us mere mortals encounter. I'm thinking more about the night or low light sporting events that most of us shoot.

Tareq wrote in post #2172303
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.

First, there are two 400 f/4s that I often see at NFL games; Second, I virtually NEVER see a 70-200 of any speed on the sidelines. (I've had season tickets for over 15 years, and I have shot on the sidelines myself with a field pass). I agree that 2.8 versions are preferrable, but the truth is that both are used - A LOT!

My only point was that to say you can't do sports work without a 2.8 is silly! The idea that only f/2.8 will do seems prevalent, but its not necessarily so.

Shooting kid's sports with a 70-200 f/4L was a disappointing experience for me.

Shooting with a 500 at f/4 and shooting with a 200 at f/4 are two different things.

The 70-200 f/4L at f/4 will not isolate the subject against the background at a kid's soccer match enough for my taste, but I can do it with my 400 f/5.6L much like my 70-200 f/2.8L will. That is the main reason I sold my 70-200 f/4L and moved to the f/2.8L which I shoot wide open over 90% of the time.

For the OP, I would either save a few more dollars for a new one or get a used one, but at that price point, I would go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over the Canon 70-200 f/4L for shooting kid's soccer matches.

Furthermore, the perfect single lens for kid's soccer matches does not exist. EVERY lens has compromises for this application, so you need to figure out which one will work best for you and accept that it will have it's limitations. If you want to cover every square inch of the pitch, you will need a minimum of two bodies (with different lenses of course). My ideal soccer combo (of equipment that actually exists) would be two 1DMkII bodies with a 70-200 f/2.8L and a 400 f/2.8L.

Honestly, a (Sigma or Canon) 70-200 f/2.8 lens will get you lots of great keeper kid's soccer photos all the way through the HS years and is IMHO, the most economical lens that will yield consistently high quality results.

The next step to cover the far end of a pitch is going to cost you plenty and I would advise to just accept that you can't cover it all and just go for quality where you can let the action come to you. It will usually be enough.

You may see very few 70-200 f/2.8L's on the sideline of an NFL game, but I would be willing to bet you see FAR fewer 70-200 f/4L's in that situation. And.... the background at a professional sporting event is usually a far better backdrop than that of many (if not most) kid's athletic fields.

Good luck.

JNunn wrote in post #2178364
First, there are two 400 f/4s that I often see at NFL games; Second, I virtually NEVER see a 70-200 of any speed on the sidelines. (I've had season tickets for over 15 years, and I have shot on the sidelines myself with a field pass). I agree that 2.8 versions are preferrable, but the truth is that both are used - A LOT!

My only point was that to say you can't do sports work without a 2.8 is silly! The idea that only f/2.8 will do seems prevalent, but its not necessarily so.

400 f/4's? Usually its the 400 f/2.8 or 300 2.8 with 1.4 tc's on it, if its during day. Anyway, 2.8 is more important when you are shorter. When you are longer, its easier to isolate because you fill the frame much more.

But of course, there is never an absolute rule to anything.