Which lens 70-200F/4L or Sigma 100-300 F/4?

I currently use the Canon 70-200mm F/4L. I use it for youth sports, such as football and baseball. I would love more reach but my wallet can't afford a better canon lens. What do you think of the sigma 100-300mm F/4? Do you think it's worth upgrading ? Is it sharp at 300 ? TIA~

Have you considered trying out a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter?

That's a really wide open question. The quickest (and most straight forward) way to get more reach is to toss on a 1.4x teleconverter as tripsis mentioned, which means you won't lose the 70-100 range or have to sell the L glass off.

A specific answer is going to depend on what sports, whether you're looking to sell the current lens to help fund a new one, and what your budget is. Most outdoor sports you need either a 70-200mm f/2.8 with TC's OR a fast prime 300mm+, and both are pricey routes.. but the 70-200 is a 2.8 lens, and that's the big draw. Being that the 100-300mm f/4 is a $1000+ lens, why not consider the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L at roughly the same price? Or a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 plus a TC?

I guess I'm stuck on the f/2.8 notion. If you're really looking for reach, why not consider the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $730, or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $950, or the 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $575?

For the price of the sigma 100-300, if you already have the cash, I'd be looking more at a Canon 300mm f/4L, then maybe a TC later on in the game.

Lots of options, but it depends on what your needs are.

I do have an extender and have tried it twice. I wasn't overly excited with the results. I can use the extender with the sigma too for even more reach.
I also forgot to mention that I can get the sigma for about $575 (is this good?)

tripsis wrote in post #6910863
Have you considered trying out a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter?

Right now I am only shooting football and baseball.
Before finding this lens at the price of $575 I was considering the 300mm F/4 or the 70-200mm 2.8. I was torn on what I wanted more. I am little afraid to go with the prime, I am used to the zoom but 99% of the pictures I am out at 200mm. Most of the games are daytime games... but my older son goes to HS next year and games will be at night so I know I need the 2.8 over the 4.
Ugh, decisions.

ChrisRabior wrote in post #6910911
That's a really wide open question. The quickest (and most straight forward) way to get more reach is to toss on a 1.4x teleconverter as tripsis mentioned, which means you won't lose the 70-100 range or have to sell the L glass off.

A specific answer is going to depend on what sports, whether you're looking to sell the current lens to help fund a new one, and what your budget is. Most outdoor sports you need either a 70-200mm f/2.8 with TC's OR a fast prime 300mm+, and both are pricey routes.. but the 70-200 is a 2.8 lens, and that's the big draw. Being that the 100-300mm f/4 is a $1000+ lens, why not consider the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L at roughly the same price? Or a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 plus a TC?

I guess I'm stuck on the f/2.8 notion. If you're really looking for reach, why not consider the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $730, or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $950, or the 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for $575?

For the price of the sigma 100-300, if you already have the cash, I'd be looking more at a Canon 300mm f/4L, then maybe a TC later on in the game.

Lots of options, but it depends on what your needs are.

My friend has the 100-300 f/4 and IMHO, the 70-200 f/4L
takes a sharper pic... now if reach is an issue, you might want
to take a look at the 300 f/4L as well, I think it's a pretty good
lens for the $700-$900 range... I actually thought the color and
IQ compared pretty well to the 120-300 f/2.8 which in itself is a pretty
good lens...

caroleigh wrote in post #6910948
I do have an extender and have tried it twice. I wasn't overly excited with the results. I can use the extender with the sigma too for even more reach.
I also forgot to mention that I can get the sigma for about $575 (is this good?)

If you can get it at that price , I say buy it . That's a good buy
Do you what version it is ?
I think it's a better lens then the 70-200mm f/4. That's from using both.