Sports shooter lens advice

[TomWilko]

Over the next few weeks all the money will be in place for me to get my first telephoto zoom for use with the sports I am shooting this year.

And I'm genuinely stuck for choice! Basically over the coming year or 2 I imagine myself to be shooting these sports in order of occurance:

1. Motorsport
2. Swimming
3. Football
4. Other indoor/general outdoor sports

The biggest will be Motorsport, this is the one I am mad about and will be scheduling in up to 20 events over this year alone as long as time allows. The rest are more for general interest and with a hope to improve my skill. I have my 50mm F/1.8 lined up for Swimming (already have this lens) and the other sports I was hoping to cover under the telephoto I am posting about here.

Now, from my perspective, the 3 choices I have so far in regards lenses are:

1. Canon 70-200mm F/4 L
2. Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG
3. Sigma 100-300mm F/4 EX APO

Now, in price terms the Canon is the cheapest, with the Sigma 70-200 coming in next and then the longer range Sigma being the most expensive. But what do people honestly advise I choose!

I can also afford to buy the teleconvertors for the Sigma and Canon lenses, and would be looking at the 1.4x in both cases. So therefore if I went for the Canon I would get the Canon teleconvertor, and if I went for the Sigma I would buy the Sigma teleconvertor.

From the shots I have seen from the Canon, it has the edge regards optical quality over the other 2, however the other 2 hold there own in regards I am either getting a wider initial aperture or a longer range focal length.

Just want some gut reaction really, I can afford one of the 3 and just can't make my mind up which!

Thanks for reading,

Tom

[noah]

sigma 70-200 f2.8 imo

you will really need the f2.8 for any indoor sports to freeze the action, f4 just wont cut it without using a higher iso. many people even go for lenses like the 85mm f1.8 to gain the extra speed if you can get close enough. given you need the extra reach for motorsport the 70-200 seems sensible and apparently works well with the 1.4 converter. also if you use the canon and a 1.4x you'll be down to f5.6 which is definately too slow indoors or in poor light.

just my opinion tho

[TomWilko]

For reference I just purchased a Canon F/4 L off Ebay secondhand. I decided at this present time I do not have a skill level or usage level to justify me spending more than I have paid for this secondhand.

It's only 9 months old and comes with a full UK warranty from a certain high street camera store...still 3 months left which gives me plenty of time to make sure its ok.

Very happy!

[noah]

fair enough, im sure it will do you proud. it's supposed to be a very sharp piece of glass indeed and is apparently much lighter that the f2.8's

dont forget to post us some shots

[shiato storm]

its lighter and white...! yay!

[hoodmeister]

and white...! yay!

Ew, you mean!

Sorry, but the white finish on high end Canon glass doesn't do it for me.

LOOK AT MY BIG LENS! I AM BETTER THAN YOU!

[noah]

Sorry, but the white finish on high end Canon glass doesn't do it for me.

nikon do it too now, but i've never seen one in the flesh

[shiato storm]

they're just jealous! its ok, Ive only got one white one, the rest are nice and black...just out of interest what wideangle lenses do you lot use?

[hoodmeister]

nikon do it too now, but i've never seen one in the flesh

Oh no!

I use a Sigma 15-30mm
Noah uses a Sigma 10-20mm

I only use the 15-30mm because I am a skinflint. I'm saving up for the 10-20mm

Neither are particularly fast lenses, but that doesn't really matter when you're shooting so wide.

If you're looking for a superwide, Shiato, it may be worth checking out the Sigma 12-24... More expensive than the 10-20, but still not silly money, and best of all, you can use it on ff

[noah]

just to give you an idea of quite how wide the 10-20mm sigma is, this was taken from a couple of feet away from the counters

[hoodmeister]

Also worth noting are mine & Noah's shots of St. Davids - we were both stood in much the same spot. I was shooting @ 15mm, he was @ 10mm, every mm makes a huge difference!

[noah]

and i cropped it by a good 10%, maybe a little more to get rid of a car on one side

[shiato storm]

cheers guys, sigma 10-20 seems pretty good after looking around, the sensors on nikons are 1.5x and canons are 1.6 so not far off...and not to bank breaking either...!

[hoodmeister]

There is a good article weighing up the pros and cons of various superwides here. Although it doesn't include the Sigma 12-24, and neither does it include the Canon (10-22?).

If you just ignore the "Nikon are great" stuff, it makes good reading

[shiato storm]

10-20 its looking like then! cheer for that hoodi....

p.s. apparently 'nikon is great' according to that. must be right!

[fuddam]

nikon 12-24mm

mmmmmmmmmmmm goodness