Hey everyone, I'm torn between the Canon 300mm 2.8 IS or the Sigma 300mm 2.8. The Sigma is about half the price on the second hand market as the Canon. While I used to make money in round-a-bout ways in photography, I now shoot as a volunteer for my son's football team. My 70-200 just doesn't have the reach I'm looking for. I look at $1k for the Sigma and then question it because I can get the Canon for a bit more and know I've got the superior lens. Anyone have experience with these that can lend advice in a hurry?
I'm the first to love a fast prime, and 2.8 is great that length, I think the IS is something your really should consider so you can shoot below 1/300 as needed. If you go with a prime like this, you will likely wan to add a 1.4 teleconverter at some point, so maybe considering the TC and lens mantch up there too, IS would be a must and 2.8 will be a godsend with a TC. A different thought based on your situation for sports, .....how about Used Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (Image Stabilized) Zoom Lens.??? The variable aperture ain't that terrible (I'm not usually a fan of variable aperture) , and you get a lot of zoom versatility for shooting football. Used condition you can have at 1300 instead of the 2400 new. You could try a 1.4 TC on your 70-200 and see how you like the 300mm range.
I used to have a 100-400 and I never really liked it that much. The version II might be a bit better but I havent had any experience with it. For now, it'd probably work out fine since his games are during the day, but as he gets a little older and starts playing at night, the 2.8 is going to come in handy where the 100-400 just won't be able to cope. I think I've settled on the Canon instead of the Sigma, but it's still a scary proposition to drop that much money on something that I'm just not sure there is a noticeable enough difference. It's only money though right? lol. thanks for the advice! And I think am going to get a 1.4 TC to see how it works with my current options.
