I have been praticing for gymnastics with my new camera, Canon 30D:cool: . I need to get a "sports lens". I was pretty sure on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but then I thought I will eventually get a 1.4x TC and was not sure if I should go with Canon,as I have other Canon lenses that I could use the 1.4xTC with or just stick with Sigma due to the price. I have also thought about the Canon 70-200 IS, but do not know if the IS will make that much of a difference. My kids are 10 and 6 and I will be shooting their sports mostly.

Any recommendations from you sports shooters???? Should I look to get IS? Is it going to make that much of a diiference?? Is it worth the extra money??

Thanks..Phil

I was shooting with a friend and his 30D yesterday. The IS lensesare what he bought.. and in conversation with him a nd a few other photographers they agreed that the Conon lenses are better for the following reasons

1 - construction - the Conon lenses are better - more solidly - built

2 - AF motors - Canon lenses are faster for auto focusing and therefore better for shooting action shots

Thats what I gathered from the conversation. Perhaps others who use this equipment will know more.

The Canon 70-200 2.8L is a more expensive lens but you'll like it, especially with a 30D. The 30D and the 70-200 are my workhorses and they have responded wonderfully. Like Jaedon mentioned, with the AF motor the Canon lens will snap into focus very quckly which is what you will need for shooting sports.

Ciddog,

Ultimately, the Canon lens is superior to the Sigma in most ways, but that shouldn't be your only consideration. If, for any reason, the Canon lens will stretch your budget, then you should seriously consider the Sigma.

Are you planning on earning money from your photography?

Sean,
I shoot for hobby. I have been aked by some parents and coaches to shoot some wrestling and baseball, but will do that for fun to get some pratice and get better at photography. The difference between the Canon 70-200 non-IS and Sigma is not that great or me to worry about. I am willing to spend theextra money to get what I will need, rather than save a few dollars and wish I had something else. If I were to get the IS, money will then be a consideration, but only to the extent of is it worht the extra money.

Phil

Phil,

Thanks for your response. I shoot with the non-IS Canon lens, and I love it. Its well worth its price.

Sean

I shot with a buddy's Sigma and though it was okay. I went out and got the Canon 70-200 f2.8 because I couldn't afford the IS at the time. Now, having the 300 f2.8 IS I wished I had waited and gotten the 70-200 IS. I think it really depends on what you plan to shoot. If you're going to be going out in to bright sunny daylight and always have ideal shooting conditions, you may not need the IS.

From experiance with both the Sigma and Canon lenses, the Sigma is OK, but the Canon os MUCH better, and with gymnastics you really need the IS as most gymnastics events are in poorly lit gyms. Even in well lit gyms the Canon lens with IS blows the Sigma away.

JS