mike t.

Scott, I have recently *trialed* this lens alongside two Sigma EX lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM and the 120-300mm f/2.8. There is no doubt that the Canon is a marvelous piece of equipment. But what is very surprising (and a relief if you're on a budget like me) is that there is no discernible difference b/w the photos taken with Canon vs those of the Sigmas. Not being very brand conscious, I've since returned the Canon and kept the Sigma.

That's my two cents, anyway. If you're the kind of person who has to buy a BMW because it's the most highly rated sports sedan on the road, well, you're probably inclined to Canon L lenses. If you think of camera equipment as simply tools to be bought for their utility, then check out the Sigma EX lenses. I was given this advice awhile ago and I'm glad I followed it.

Good shooting!

Eric,

I second the suggestion of the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM. I have shot sports with both the Canon L 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version and the Sigma EX recently. ALthough it's probably hard to believe due to the deserved reputation of the Canon, I have shown some of my prints to shop folks and they cannot tell which came from which lens. The AF on the Canon seems slightly faster (it has amazing speed), but the Sigma is plenty fast for my youth soccer shooting. 'Round here, the Sigma is about $400 less than the Canon non-IS version and over $1,000 less than the IS. For my money, I kept the Sigma. But then I'm lacking in disposable income ...

Otherwise, do opt for the f/2.8 rather than the f/4 if you plan to try indoor sports, whatever brand you buy. You'll not regret the low light capability and speed and improved bokeh. Also, keep in mind that the AF will be more responsive with the f/2.8, esp. as you lose light.

Good luck!

Thanks everyone - all the advice is helpful. The variations in responses confirms that the answer isn't easy or obvious. I've now trialed the Sigma 120-300mm and the Canon 70-200mm. Both deliver very sharp, contrasty, high bokeh images. Both have more than adequate AF speed. Aye, aye, aye - can't make up my mind.

I'm leaning toward the Sigma because of the better value per dollar spent. With limited funds I can own more glass that way. Of course, Andy Mead (a really fine pro soccer photog) was kind enough to offer the opinion that working on my skills with the one Canon lens makes a lot of sense. Master of one lens is far better than being a mediocre shooter with many lenses!

Thanks again, y'all!

Thanks for the insight - I am having a lot of trouble deciding this one. My experience (which is very limited) is that the f/5.6 is too slow except in sun-drenched conditions. I've shot late in the day and under cloudcover with a 300mm f/5.6 and shutter speed becomes a factor: lots of blurred players - below 1/500 is not a good place to be.

Then again, the reach of a 300-400mm is a big help to fill the frame, esp. with young players. I'm thinking of working on my skills with the 70-200mm, letting the action come to me more, and not trying to nail shots across midfield. Does this make sense?

I've saved my dollars and I'm ready to start shooting youth soccer.

My thinking is to start with the most versatile lens capable of

handling variable light and of reaching out to almost 30 yds, while

giving good background blur, tight composition - all those sports

photo values. The cost of either alternative is about the same.

This'll be my one tele for quite awhile, so the lens needs

versatility for non-soccer shooting, too. I have a Canon 28-105mm

f3.5-4.5 USM for the "short" side. I'm using an Elan 7 body, btw.

ANY advice is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Mike