Torn between two lenses! The Brick vs. 300 f/4L

The 70-200's main strength is image quality with some speed, you don't need that image quality for photojournalism and would definitely be better off with the Sigma 100-300. You could probably come out a dollar or so ahead in the move.

I have posted unedited full size shots from both the 100-300 f/4 and the 300 f/4 IS HERE . They are from a 50d and 7d. The men are the Canon, women are the Sigma (last two Sigmas are with the [Sigma] 1.4x TC). Exif's are intact and I'd be happy to answer any questions as I own the 300 f/4 IS and the Sigma 100-300 and have shot them both in and out of sports extensively for 3 years each.

In short, I recommend the 100-300 for sports over the 300 f/4 IS. I consider the latter to be a more versatile lens in general, however.

I have all of these lenses...24-70(sweet & versatile on the 1Ds), 70-200(married to the MkII),& 300f/4( hooks to the 1Ds on game days.SHARP AS HELL!), 85 1.8(portraits on 1Ds), and the 1.4 ext(w/300 on 1Ds)... and each one has it's strengths & weaknesses... But having all in my bag is well...AWESOME!

KJEphoto wrote in post #11225697
I've also thought about buying the 24-70 now. Then once i have enough money sell my 70-200 f/4L for around $500 and pick up the Sigma 100-300...Thoughts on this? Sounding pretty good to me.

Are you planning on sticking with APS-C? BEcause the 24-70 isn't really all that wide. I'd much sooner go 17-55 IS on a 40D.

The probably with the 100-300 is that it would really only be useful for day field sports/general PJ shots and you'd have no longer f/2.8 glass.

Anyway it's probably to early now to decide for way down the line. The PJ field is a mess and getting worse by the minute anyway.

You list more reasons to own the 300 f/4, so I'd say go with your gut.

If you're willing to be patient and save longer, skip it and get the 300 f/2.8 IS L so that you really notice a pop.