I'm having commitment issues

I thought it was a nice thread title


Anyway, right now I'm looking for the perfect lens (in ratio w/budget) for sports photography this fall. I've done a fair amount of research and in doing so I've changed my mind plenty of times. By the time I'm ready to buy the gear I'll have $2,500 all dedicated to sports photography.

I was first set on the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and then I came across the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and I've gone back and forth between the two. I've seen amazing things from the Sigma - in my opinion the images "pop" a lot more than the Canon and the reach @2.8 is invaluable, but the problem is that I've also heard bad things about it - concerning AF and quality control.

Right now I don't know which one to pick and it would be helpful to hear peoples .02cents and advice.

Sorry if this same question has come up before
-Max

It's really hard to assess how much trouble you will have with a given lens from the internet chatter. I've heard the same stuff about the Sigma, but I've also seen a lot of great sports shots with that lens.

For what it is worth, 300/2.8 is a whole 'nother league from 200/2.8. I shoot a 5D and I find that even 300mm is too short for a lot of outside sports and I'm usually using a TC. Something like the 120-300/2.8 plus an optional 1.4X TC would seem to be a single lens solution for all outdoor sports, and if you have a 1.6X body it would mostly get used native.

A 70-200/2.8 to me is more of an inside sports and performing arts lens, and even a 1.6X body user is going to tend to shoot this most of the time with a 1.4X TC for outside sports.

As JG says, 300 is typically much more useful than 200 -- but what sports are you shooting?

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Sigma new knowing you can return for exchange or send it in for calibration if you're not happy. I'd guess the complaints are overblown given that the QC is likely better for their high-ticket lenses.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5896972
It's really hard to assess how much trouble you will have with a given lens from the internet chatter. I've heard the same stuff about the Sigma, but I've also seen a lot of great sports shots with that lens.

For what it is worth, 300/2.8 is a whole 'nother league from 200/2.8. I shoot a 5D and I find that even 300mm is too short for a lot of outside sports and I'm usually using a TC. Something like the 120-300/2.8 plus an optional 1.4X TC would seem to be a single lens solution for all outdoor sports, and if you have a 1.6X body it would mostly get used native.

A 70-200/2.8 to me is more of an inside sports and performing arts lens, and even a 1.6X body user is going to tend to shoot this most of the time with a 1.4X TC for outside sports.

TheHoff wrote in post #5896984
As JG says, 300 is typically much more useful than 200 -- but what sports are you shooting?

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the Sigma new knowing you can return for exchange or send it in for calibration if you're not happy. I'd guess the complaints are overblown given that the QC is likely better for their high-ticket lenses.

I'll be shooting all sports but mostly it's football and soccer I'm concerned with.

Here is a review with 100% crops of the Sigma prime 300 and zoom 300:

http://www.popphoto.co​m …otout-sigma-vs-sigma.html

If you're most concerned with football and soccer, what level? HS or NCAA? If higher than HS, I'd get the prime 300 and a 1.4x. If HS or similar, I'd get the zoom 300 (and still the 1.4x but you'd need it less).

TheHoff wrote in post #5898093
Here is a review with 100% crops of the Sigma prime 300 and zoom 300:

http://www.popphoto.co​m …otout-sigma-vs-sigma.html

If you're most concerned with football and soccer, what level? HS or NCAA? If higher than HS, I'd get the prime 300 and a 1.4x. If HS or similar, I'd get the zoom 300 (and still the 1.4x but you'd need it less).

All HS sports - floodlights

I've read that review and I need the versatility of a zoom...I can't afford to use my feet.

I know for soccer you need the extra length and a 1.4x might be necessary; does the sigma zoom work well with it or does AF suffer significantly?