Telephoto or Telephoto Zoom?

[AlQ]

Any feedback or experience with any of these four lenses?

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ...
Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Autofocus Lens
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon ...
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens

I'm using it primarily for sports, so any pro or con with getting a fixed lens (Canon 300 mm) as opposed to a telephoto zoom?

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks!

[OsmosisStudios]

For sports you'll want a zoom: it just gives you that kind of versatility. You may want to instead look at a 70-200 with a teleconverter. A x1.4 would give you 280mm, and you could always go more too.

That being said, if you absolutely need 300mm, the 100-400 would be your best bet but you'll need a high-iso capable body.

[RichardTaylor]

What sports are you shooting and where and when are you shooting?

I use a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L lens for motor racing, on a 40D, sometimes tracside and sometimes from the spectator areas, and it is a very flexible combination, in good lighting.

[AlQ]

I will be shooting mostly outdoor sports (football, lacrosse, baseball) and a little indoor (basketball, volleyball) with a Canon XSi. I already have the Canon short lens (EF-S 55-250 mm) but I am looking for something a little longer and maybe better quality (....I still can't afford the f/2.8L's though

Thanks for the feedback; I appreciate it!

[OsmosisStudios]

The 100-400 will give you the reach. The issue is that if you use it indoors, the max aperture on it is 4.5-5.6, which is slooooow. You'll need to raise your ISO to a level you may not find acceptable. Hence the recommendation on the 2.8L

[AlQ]

That's what I figured re: indoor shooting and the speed of the lens......

Thank you for the feedback; I appreciate it!

[sk66]

I use a Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3. I covered Moto GP races with it in the rain (i.e. little/no sun) with good results (Nikon D300). Images are on my flickr.

I have faster/"better" lenses now (80-200 f/2.8, 500 f/4), but I still keep the Bigma for it's versatility.

The "con" with the fixed lens is ability to compose....and sometimes I've found the 500 f/4 just too long for the situation. Additionally, the longer the lens the harder it is to "find" something moving very quickly.

[AlQ]

I was looking at the "Bigma" but didn't think the quality could be as good considering the focal range. Did you find that the Sigma was a little slower to focus than some of your other lenses?

The "con" with the fixed lens is ability to compose....and sometimes I've found the 500 f/4 just too long for the situation. Additionally, the longer the lens the harder it is to "find" something moving very quickly.

Excellent point re: the ability to compose....especially dealing with moving objects such as you find shooting sports; I hadn't thought much about that.

Thanks for the feedback; I appreciate hearing from people who have the experience!

[sk66]

I find the quality to be quite good. At smaller apertures and lower light levels every lens focuses slower. I find my slowest focusing lenses are the ones that rely on the camera motor.

Here's a couple example shots from the GP race.

at 500mm f/8 iso 200 1/250 (monopod)


at 195mm f/6 iso200 1/125 (monopod)

[AlQ]

These look very good!.....thanks!