Sports Shooters- Please help with lens choice

I apologize for asking the questions that many have asked here before but I have searched and I still have not made a choice.

I am upgrading my lens when I get my tax money (might break out a CC before then...)

I was wondering if you would just read below and tell me what you feel is right for me.

I use a Canon 40D. Right now I am using a 70-200mm F/4L.

I mostly shoot outdoor youth sports, such as baseball and football and I will be trying soccer for the first time soon and my older son will be running track next year as well. As of now my kids have mostly had daytime games, however, my older son will be in HS next year and I am guessing we will have a lot of night time games. At this moment I am an amature who just shoots my kids sports but I have many people who want me to come to their kids games and shoot for them. I have turned them down so far because I feel I need a better set up before I commit.

With this said I am torn on what's best for me... more reach or the F/2.8.

I had a few lenses in mind, but wasn't sure which would be best for me.

Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 (I have an extender so on those nice bright days I can get more reach that way, just sacrafice the reach at night)

Sigma 100-300mm F/4

Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6
etc...

Is there any Sigma lenses that are comparable to Canon brand?

I've been pondering some primes too but won't I miss the zoom?

I must add that I am putting a price limit, I don't mind buying used. I would PREFER to stay $1000 but will extend to $1200 to find the lens that is right for me.

I'm so at a loss and I can't make up my mind.

There used to be a thread that had each lens and you could see samples, I can't find that thread now.

Have you had the oppertunity to test several lenses? Please repond and help me out. The only telephoto lens I have tried is the 70-200mm F/4L.
Even if you just have a sports lens you just love and recommend (provided you are shooting about the same sports as I am).

Thank you so much your time and your help!

Ps. here is my website, it's just basic for the parents to order photos from
www.caroltrentlerphoto​graphy.com
Parents always love the shots, but do you think with a better lens I could be in buisness?

I'd definately go Canon 70-200 f2.8. Adding a TC, you'll still get good quality and nearly 300mm of reach @ f4. AF is likely to be better with Canon - important with sports.

Thank you for your input. That was my 1st choice. My DH doesn't understand why I need to spend that much money for the same reach I already have
I was interested in the 400 reach but I wondered about quality and for the amount I am limited to I worried about anything higher then the F/4

philthejuggler wrote in post #6965748
I'd definately go Canon 70-200 f2.8. Adding a TC, you'll still get good quality and nearly 300mm of reach @ f4. AF is likely to be better with Canon - important with sports.

Another thing... I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 but I have not mastered shooting at 2.8 (example here) Is the Canon hard to master at 2.8?

I agree with philthejuggler. The 70-200 2.8 L IS is a sensational lens for sports and with the 1.4 extender and your 1.6x crop body, you should have plenty of reach!

I'd say get a 300 f4 IS for day light field sports and a 85 f1.8 for indoor basketball.

These 2 will be in the your price range.

70-200 2.8 hands down, and with the 1.4 it will be perfect.

Agree with Sonny. I just typed a big response and hit the wrong key.

If you can find non IS model of 300mm f4, then it would be cheaper and nicer.

1.4xTC slows down AF and picture quality suffers, IMHO. And 200mm just isn't enough reach for soccer or even baseball.

And get a flash for shooting night time football.

caroleigh wrote in post #6965839
Another thing... I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 but I have not mastered shooting at 2.8 (example here) Is the Canon hard to master at 2.8?

The shot in the link looks fine to me! The wider the aperture, the smaller the depth of field, the lower the keeper rate but the keepers will probably be better!

If you had a 300 F4 as some have suggested, my experience says that getting a sharp shot on that @ F4 is more difficult that getting one @ f2.8 @ 200mm. I found the 300 F4 more difficult to get keepers than any other lens I've used including fast primes such as the 85mm f1.2.

I would add, that in some lighting f2.8 is necessary to avoid silly-high ISO settings or silly-low shutter speeds. My 70-200 f2.8 was a life-saver at a recent event where I was the official photographer of a pop band. f4 simply would not have been good enough, I was pushing the ISO enough as it was!

Phil

Check this link out Carole, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=107 , .

Skip the Sigma 120-400mm , you don't want a lens slower then what you have now.

As you know, I use the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. You don't have to worry about the IQ or AF speed with this lens . The AF is very fast and IQ is very very good. You can shoot it all day at f/4 @ 300mm and not have to worry about it. It does weigh around 3lbs, so some use a monopod. I do some of the time, but mainly use it hand held. For day or evening sports, I would say go ahead and upgrade to it.

But it is not a night time sports lens.For that you will need a 2.8 lens, and hope that the lighting is better on your fields then they where on mine.

I would suggest the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 for day or early evening sports.
The Canon 70-200mm 2.8 for nights . You can use a tc on it for the day games , but you will lose some IQ and AF speed.
Another option would be to try and find a used Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 lens. But even used it might be more then you want to spend. Also it is heavy !!

Oh. i'm Strider from the other group.

What about the 300 2.8 non IS? Shooting sports you will probably be using a monopod anyway so no need for IS.

My kids don't play basketball so I think it will be a little while before I try basketball. I have been asked but I don't feel ready for indoor sports... so I don't have to worry about the 85 right now.

If I go with the 300mm do you think I will miss the zoom? I know there are times I am on the sidelines at the football games where they come right to me ... If I go with the 300 I would probably miss those shots ... but then again it should be worth it to get closer to the mid field and other side of the field. Hum.

4x4rock wrote in post #6965863
I'd say get a 300 f4 IS for day light field sports and a 85 f1.8 for indoor basketball.

These 2 will be in the your price range.

JasonRussell wrote in post #6965917
What about the 300 2.8 non IS? Shooting sports you will probably be using a monopod anyway so no need for IS.

While it's a nice lens, it's not in the OP's budget of $1000-1200. Same with the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

I do have the 430ex... just need to learn how to use it

bobbyz wrote in post #6965875
Agree with Sonny. I just typed a big response and hit the wrong key.

If you can find non IS model of 300mm f4, then it would be cheaper and nicer.

1.4xTC slows down AF and picture quality suffers, IMHO. And 200mm just isn't enough reach for soccer or even baseball.

And get a flash for shooting night time football.

4x4rock wrote in post #6965930
While it's a nice lens, it's not in the OP's budget of $1000-1200. Same with the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

Ooops.

Reading > me