Chosing a long telephoto. Please provide some suggestions

[SaSi]

I am going through various options in chosing a telephoto (probably zoom) for sports (mainly) photography. I am considering the following to use on a Canon 30D:

Canon EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS (cost ~ 650 euro)
Sigma 50-500 (cost ~ 900 euro)
Sigma 80-400 OS (cost ~ 1000 euro)
Canon EF 300/4.0 IS (cost ~ 1300 euro)
Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L U IS (cost ~ 1700 euro)

I have put the lenses in order of increasing prices. My prime scope for the lens is Athletics and secondary is wildlife. I don't mind using a monopod but a tripod is bulk I would like to avoid.

Obviously, there is a range between 300 and 500 mm in the max telephoto value of zoom lenses that makes me wonder what is enough and what is a waste. I have a plain 70-300 lens and did some shots which show that there is something more I need in range.

The Canon zoom (70-300) is compact, cheap and IS enabled. I like it but it's short-ranged.
The Sigma 50-500 is long range telephoto and have read rave reviews, but it's bulky, heavy, requires at least a monopod and has no IS.
The Sigma 80-400 has IS (OS) and in reviews shows comparable image quality to the Canon L series. That tempts me, however in the same reviews it is noted that auto focus is slow and that continous burst shots show delays. Any real life experiences?
The 300/L is a good compromise in terms of cost, performance and quality but will make me miss the zoom capability and in terms of range looks short.
Finally, the 100-400 appears to be the winner, if only somebody would buy that to me. It really is slightly beyond my reach.

So, my real question is:
Does the lack of IS on the 50-500 and the weight make it unusable for sports? Is the Sigma 80-400 good for sports or not fast enough? Is 300mm (i.e. 480 with the 1.6x) enough for athletics or should I need the extra 100 or 200mm?

Any experiences and feedback gracefully accepted.

Thanks in advance

[BLS439]

Well, you say you have a 70-300 and it's too slow. Luckily with all of the choices/options you list you should be able to pick a lens.

You asked about the 300 being long enough. I guess you'll have to answer that question. You already have 300, is it long enough for the sports you want to shoot or do you need more length?

How fast is your current lens? How much low-light shooting will you be doing? I think it may not be wise to choose a lens similar to what you already have.

If it were me, my choice would be a Canon 70-200 f2.8 or with IS if you can afford it. Then start looking at the teleconverters. The 1.4x will turn it into a 105-280 f4 (IS) and a 2x would give you 140-400 f5.6 (IS).

The quality of the canon L glass is amazing. It sounds to me like you are looking for a fast lens with great reach. I think what I recommended may the best of both worlds.

Good Luck!

[JSPhoto]

You really need a faster lens than those you list for sports. The 70-200 f2.8 w/IS. The f4 and slower lenses are OK if you are outside on nice sunny days but will have major problems in low light or poor light. You would need to use a flash. You'd be better off with the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 than those you listed, but it is very expensive. I use both the 70-200 w/IS and the 28-300. At night I use flash as a fill flash which gives great results even on the 28-300. The nice thing with 28-300 is you don't need to change lenses constantly (or cameras). Many times I have the 70-200 on one body and the 28-300 on another.
Even cloudy days will limit the lenses you listed, unless you plan on using a good flash such as the 580EX.

JS

[adamsti]

You really need a faster lens than those you list for sports. The 70-200 f2.8 w/IS. The f4 and slower lenses are OK if you are outside on nice sunny days but will have major problems in low light or poor light. You would need to use a flash. You'd be better off with the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 than those you listed, but it is very expensive. I use both the 70-200 w/IS and the 28-300. At night I use flash as a fill flash which gives great results even on the 28-300. The nice thing with 28-300 is you don't need to change lenses constantly (or cameras). Many times I have the 70-200 on one body and the 28-300 on another.
Even cloudy days will limit the lenses you listed, unless you plan on using a good flash such as the 580EX.

JS

JS is right. If your going to be shooting at night at dim sports fields your going to need to f2.8 lenses like the 300, or 400 primes, but they are very, very expensive.

[SaSi]

Thank you so much for the feedback. The constant theme in your responses is a faster lens. It appears to me that this is the trick here.

My current kit is a lowly EF 75-300/f4-5.6 USM. In low light conditions it is even unable to autofocus, and at 300mm and f5.6 the depth of field isn't enough to use a preset focus setting and trim that.

I have narrowed the field of selection a lot now.

I surely don't need 500mm (800mm on my camera) and I know that the 300mm is marginally short, therefore my aim is for a 400mm reaching telephoto.

The Sigma 80-400/4-5.6 with Image Stabilization seems to be a good choice in terms of range and picture quality. It's rated almost as good as the EF 100-400 or better in some respects.

On the other hand, the EF 700-200/2.8 IS with extender (out of my pocket's reach for the moment) gave me another idea.

How about an EF 200/2.8L U with a 2x extender? Pricewise is very well within my budget - even less than what I expect to spend) and the extender makes it exactly what I need. However the question I have is:

Is a fixed focal prime useful enough in a stadium for athletics? I am considering it limited in terms of framing the subject (especially runners) and that's the reason I am driven to a zoom lens. Can anyone comment on this please? Because if a prime is good enough, then I can really consider a used EF300/4.0L IS at a bargain price. I could use this with an 1.4x extender.

Again thanks in advance for your feedback and suggestions. They are very much appreciated.

[masdog]

What kind of sports are you shooting? Indoor? Outdoor? Low-light?

[CWatsonJr]

Sorry I haven't posted in a while folks - life has been hectic. Mike (my son) started shooting FB pictures again and the night photos are just not at the same level as last year so I came back to review what was posted last year.

In my opinion, I would never be satisfied with a 200 from the stands (football). It really depends on what sport you are shooting but 200 for me is not close enough (I found this out shooting baseball). The f/2.8 is a must for low-light (football stadiums, basketball courts, etc.) and I have to thank the folks here for steering me in the right direction on getting the Canon IS 70-200 f/2.8!

Using an extender will only make the lens slower (takes it to a 4 or 4.5 I think) so I don't think that will be a good option for low light.

Stick with getting the f/2.8 and talk to the AD to see if you can get down on the field. I have found that the coaches and players welcome the photographer. See if you can reciprocate the favor by offering pictures back to the coaches that they can use to help their athletes get better.

Cliff