2.8 lens for sports

I need a lens for those over cast days we have in Oklahoma in the spring.
Main use will be for youth baseball and soccer. Maybe other sports latter on.

My main lens on sunny days will still be the Sigma 100-300mm f/4EX. I do okay untill I have to run the ISO over 800.

I do have the 50-150mm 2.8EX but find it a little short for sports but does okay for the close-up shots.

I'm thinking of adding the 200mm 2.8L and using the 85mm 1.8 or the 50-150mm on another body.

I'm also thinking about the Canon70-200mm 2.8 and the Sigma 120-300mm.
If I go with the 120-300mm, I would most likely sell the 100-300mm.

I am thinking the 200mm prime is my best way to go. But I think 200mm is a little short also.

Any thoughts ?

For the wonderful Ozark spring shots, you gotta have a f2.8 that's for sure! I shoot a lot of soccer, all the way from little kickers up through adult club soccer and I use my EF 70-200 f2.8 for everything except the older youth and adult soccer games. I have found myself wishing for the EF 100-400 many times on the big fields as the 200 just doesn't have that extra reach that I need. For right now, I have myself and one other photog on the field and we split it using two 70-200 f2.8 and that seems to work the best for the full size fields.

I like the idea of the 50-150mm for infield baseball shots, however I think you're going to want a little more reach than the 120-300mm for anything in the outfield, unless these are short fields you're shooting! I use the 70-200 on my baseball shoots and that has worked so far for me, but that will be changing here shortly! I really want to be able to get deeper in the outfield and I need a longer reach for those. But that's in the future!

Soccer you'll need 300mm. I think the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is an excellent choice for soccer and baseball. I've seen great photos come from this lens, nice color, contrast, and sharpness.

You could go with the Canon 70-200 f2.8, it's a wonderful lens and really good if the action comes up to you, but it falls short at the long end and can't be used as your primary lens.

I would buy the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and put something smaller, say 85 on a second body.

28-300L is a good lens, just heavy and expensive.

I do plan to add the 400mm 5.6 mainly for birding.But could use it on sunny days for lenght.

The 120-300mm might be the best option. But it depends on how good I do selling the images. Maybe go with the prime and see how I do ?

tim wrote in post #5685909
28-300L is a good lens, just heavy and expensive.

A little slow also

My advice would be to get a 70-200 2.8L until you can afford a 400mm 2.8L. You just can't beat the flexability of the zoom and 2.8 is a must have for sports, IMHO.

No doubt the 400mm 2.8 is great lens for sports. But I'm not ready for that yet !
Tough call here. At least for me.

Unless they improve the lighting at the fields I go to most, I won't be doing the night games. Even with ISO at 3600, I can only get shutter speeds around 250 at 1.8.