blonde wrote in post #4298046
i do not own the 300 2.8 but i did use it quite a few times mostly for birds in flight when shooting with a few POTN friends. now, i don't shoot sports at all but from what i saw and know, a 300 will be a bit too long for hocky and basketball so your 70-200 is probably the best choice anyway. however, for football, the 70-200 will often be too short so you do need a longer lens.
honestly, what i would do is a bit different than the options that you posted: i would sell the 70-200 that you have and pick up a 85 1.8 instead (killer lens that will work great for basketball) and keep the 120-300 that you have right now. then, i would buy the mkII and bam, best of both worlds. you will have a fast little prime for the indoor sports and you will have the sigma which is an amazing lens for the football and other field sports.
i do not own the 300 2.8 but i did use it quite a few times mostly for birds in flight when shooting with a few POTN friends. now, i don't shoot sports at all but from what i saw and know, a 300 will be a bit too long for hocky and basketball so your 70-200 is probably the best choice anyway. however, for football, the 70-200 will often be too short so you do need a longer lens.
honestly, what i would do is a bit different than the options that you posted: i would sell the 70-200 that you have and pick up a 85 1.8 instead (killer lens that will work great for basketball) and keep the 120-300 that you have right now. then, i would buy the mkII and bam, best of both worlds. you will have a fast little prime for the indoor sports and you will have the sigma which is an amazing lens for the football and other field sports.
I had and sold the 120-300 2.8. Nothing wrong with it, just wanted a prime and preferred weather sealing - though the 20D doesn't have it.
I'm siding with the Mark II right now. I have months to go before field sports even start and a teleconverter for my 70-200 2.8.
