Pro Soccer in Cleveland..yep!

angela6571 wrote in post #5921668
Ill at least agree that the 400 really is the lens to go for.

I wouldnt bother with the 300 especially since you already have the Sigma. The 400 does everything the 300 does only better. The only place it falls short (IMO) is basketball (though I have used the 400 for basketball a couple times) and volleyball. For everything else (Baseball, Football, Soccer, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Track, Swimming, Tennis..Really every other sport I shoot) the 400 is definitely the way to go.

I was actually thinking of selling the Sigma (just don't love it). I was afraid the 400 would limit me and since I'd be almost exclusively outdoors with it, I figured I could just give up a stop of light and throw the 1.4 on the 300 (and save a crapload of money in the process).

Scott, for outdoor sports, 400mm f2.8 is the best, IMHO. Main things going for 300mm f2.8 are the cost and the weight. But I did try carry 1dmk2 and 500mm f4 IS along with sigma 120-300mm and I could do it for a while. So maybe 1dmk2 and 400mm f2.8 is not that bad. It is just lot more money like you mentioned.

bobbyz wrote in post #5922144
Scott, for outdoor sports, 400mm f2.8 is the best, IMHO. Main things going for 300mm f2.8 are the cost and the weight. But I did try carry 1dmk2 and 500mm f4 IS along with sigma 120-300mm and I could do it for a while. So maybe 1dmk2 and 400mm f2.8 is not that bad. It is just lot more money like you mentioned.

If it were up to me, I'd buy it today but somehow my wife just can't get her head around a lens that costs as much as a car.

More than my first 4 cars together...

Sa-weet soccer pics. Get the 100-400 if your're not happy with the Sigma. I love mine!

John.

johndevane wrote in post #5922943
More than my first 4 cars together...

Sa-weet soccer pics. Get the 100-400 if your're not happy with the Sigma. I love mine!

John.

I have 100-400L and Sigma 120-300mm. Sigma is better than canon zoom for sports. I just sold mine to fund 300mm f2.8 IS. Sigma is also for sale.

Some of them are just a little too soft for me. The sharp ones are great, but if you can be a little more self-critical with your selections, you'll get better feedback. Nice captures of the action though.

danaitch wrote in post #5927687
Some of them are just a little too soft for me. The sharp ones are great, but if you can be a little more self-critical with your selections, you'll get better feedback. Nice captures of the action though.

thanks for the feedback and kind words on the good ones. I do agree that a few are a bit softer than I'd like. one reason I am intentionally not that self critical about the images posted here is that if I only posted the best and got a big pat on the back, I probably wouldn't improve much. you make a valid point but I just want to post some random shots to get the good, the bad, and the ugly covered (so to speak). I think this confirms my feelings on the 120-300 too. I just can't get cuddly with this lens. The first image of the keeper was the oly one shot with Canon glass and I think the difference is noticeable.

namasste wrote in post #5928082
thanks for the feedback and kind words on the good ones. I do agree that a few are a bit softer than I'd like. one reason I am intentionally not that self critical about the images posted here is that if I only posted the best and got a big pat on the back, I probably wouldn't improve much. you make a valid point but I just want to post some random shots to get the good, the bad, and the ugly covered (so to speak). I think this confirms my feelings on the 120-300 too. I just can't get cuddly with this lens. The first image of the keeper was the oly one shot with Canon glass and I think the difference is noticeable.

Ive never liked Sigma lenses but I know there are some people who just swear by them

Pics look good Scott and I agree with what is said about the 400. I owned both and I found myself not using the 300 anymore so I sold it.

Sledhed wrote in post #5929919
Pics look good Scott and I agree with what is said about the 400. I owned both and I found myself not using the 300 anymore so I sold it.

thanks Chris...I guess I have to hope some major corporation exclusively licenses something from my PSC account then, that 400 is steeeeeep!

in comparing lenses used on these images, I should have noted that in addition to the first image being the only one shot with the 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, it was also the only one handheld and probably the sharpest image there.

Numbers 4 & 8 look really good. Nice job!

angela6571 wrote in post #5929634
Ive never liked Sigma lenses but I know there are some people who just swear by them

I like them.

AthleticsPhotog wrote in post #5932953
I like them.

angela6571 wrote in post #5929634
Ive never liked Sigma lenses but I know there are some people who just swear by them

...

Fantastic Series.

You photographed Stewart (That makes it a Pro event, certifiably so), and also a kick in the balls (without it, it would not be foot-ball for the rest of the world, soccer for us).

I liked them all, specially what you made with the background while it was not the most attractive (say Rose Bowl or Maracanao's finest).

Anyhow, thanks for sharing.

EDIT: GO SIGMA EX SERIES !!!!...