Hando Rei Loc: Long Island New York

Canon is the way to go for you since you already own one. Good glass is always preferable to settling for second best. I know that a budget is of main concern so save up for it and you will not regret it. I shoot both Nikon and Canon and often buy lenses for each system. I read the reviews and that helps me decide whether to buy one or the other depending on my needs. Good luck !

lexstgo Loc: Houston, TX

Dan, I have that lens and I love it. The only thing is focusing with it is a tad slow compared to the Canon version. Once you get the focusing down, they are quite comparable. Now, I don't use it for sport but as a "quick/pseudo" macro lens and when I am out in the "fields" taking landscape pictures.

connievloutely Loc: Quaker State (PA)

Did you ever consider buying used?

I just bought a Canon 100-400 IS L used and saved about $300.00.

I went through the Amazon site.

Cheers,
Connie

overthemoon Loc: Wisconsin

I love the sigma 150 500 for outdoor photography but for indoors not sure how well this lens will do

lexstgo Loc: Houston, TX

Sportyman, ever since Tamron sponsored and event in the Denver area (Hawkquest.org) and brought out their full line of lens for us to test while at the event, I have really liked Tamron lenses (I got to test about 70% of what was available there). For the price on those lens, the quality is really good. The first 2 lens I picked up immediately was the Tamron 18-270mm as my general purpose lens and the Tamron 10-24mm for my landscape photography. Both lens have performed awesomely and the 10-24mm became my favorite lens. I purchased the 70-200mm f/2.8 a few months ago and I have been very satisfied with its performance. The only thing I kind of dislike is the slow focusing. Most of the Tamron lens don't have the usm focusing so they are kind of noisy and slow. If you don't do video with your DSLR and do manual focusing most of the time you photograph, then for the price of the lens, you will not be disappointed.

I suggest you go and rent a few lens and their canon counter parts and do a comparison so you can then justify the expenditure of the extra cash for the Canon lenses. That is how I did it for the 70-200mm. Saved me about half the price. Hope this works for you.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

i recently had my canon 70-200mm2.8 IS II stolen. with a recommendation from mtshooter, i bought the sigma 70-200mm2.8 and i have to say the photos are a little bit sharper than the canon L lens. it's a fast lens. lighter lens. it's not built like the canon and it's not that white color. i bought it at a store that i could return it if i didn't like it. i just got it saturday and i am testing it out at work everyday and every evening. so far i just love this lens. i am not taking anything away from the canon lens, but for me, this lens is just perfect. i didn't buy it because it was less expensive, i had the money to buy a new canon L......i am a big guy and a strong guy..but i just couldn't carry that canon around for 5-6hours. most of my shots are hand held.

i have a 7d and a 5d mk2..............i put it on my 7d in duluth saturday and haven't taken it off yet. on the 7d, that autofocus is so quick. doesn't hunt at all.

like i said, this is not a put-down of canon products. i do not shoot in the rain or bad weather...........but i just like everyone else...just looking for the sharpest photos!!

good luck with your decision!!!

alggomas Loc: Wales, United Kingdom.

I have a canon f4L [70-200] and is super and light. If you do not mind the weight, it's much heavier go for the f2.8L it has good reviewa as has the sigma and my f4L.
As suggested you can add an extender but a good one is expensive. If you are happy with the sigam go for it[ and use an exteder if needed]. I am sure if you hunt around and on the net your lens could be cheapere. My Canon f4L was around £445 new and discounted. List is about £800 !

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Buy the Canon. Another guy said your camera deserves it but I think "you" do after putting up with a soft lens for so long. You have a quality camera body and if you get the Canon you can use the 1.4x for 280mm or the 2x for 400mm focal length. With your camera body and a fast Canon lens like this, the extenders work great. Splurge and get the IS model but I wouldn't spend the money on the latest and greatest 70-200.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Also, the Canon lens should be built better with more metal fittings and better seals. Just comparing by focal length and f/stops isn't always the complete story. Canon L series lens are heavy generally because of the metal construction not plastic.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

I applaud you for wanting to hold onto your money. However, an investment in good Canon glass is a one time hit. The Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS will last the rest of your life, and as you already noted, produces great images. I have one myself and am so glad I bought it. Cough up the money now, cringe once and enjoy it forever.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

A lot of you guys sure missed the question but a lot of you guys sure gave the correct answers. The 1D has a crop factor of 1.3, NOT the 1.6 that a few of you were thinking. We all have been told, and do tell, "put your money into lenses." A 1D is a great camera but not one to be used at the sacrifice of lenses. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is what I would recommend because of the indoor usage. A 2x converter could be used since that camera body will easily focus since it will auto-focus at f/8. The Sigma 150-500 is a good lens, as I use one occasionally, but I feel it would not work well indoors and does not have a fast enough focus to do what you want.

My question is: why have the Canon flagship camera body when you want to move it using oars because of budget? My best, J. Goffe

Remember the f/stops here!

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I used to pinch pennies and now I'm over 10 grand into all of this. You know it's worth it. I don't ever worry about my equipment lacking. I own L series and IS whenever possible and try to have fast lens 2.8 and better. The only exception is my 300 L f/4. I didn't want to go to the 2.8 and several thousand dollars more. I bought the 50mm 1.2, even though, it was only a 1/3 stop faster than the 1.4 and alot more expensive. But it has better internal motors, glass, and construction.
Always buy the best you can afford and you'll never go wrong.

Exposures and Art Loc: Murrells Inlet SC

As a Nikon shooter I can only comment on what friends have shown me & told me regarding the Canon glass-superior! I use a 150-500 Sigma ( new version) and am quite happy with it. Just finished post processing Birds of Prey event and with Lightroom 3 helping have awesome pics. BUT, that being said, I have seen Canon 100-400 shots that were amazing. S0- I would spend the extra bucks, get the Canon with a tele and be happy ever after. The 150-500 ( imho) would be too heavy, slow, long for indoor sports. Best of luck with what ever you decide.

melphoto60

have only tested both Canon and Tamron at the camera store found it a bit noisy (Tamron) even for me also the Tamron doesn't have IS which for me I like it handholding, focus was good but not as fast as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L II IS USM but were talking about a $750 for Tamron with a $2500 Canon L lens. I just picked up the Tamron 70-300 with vc and love it gave up older Tamron 70-300 in trade.

Fkaufman3 Loc: Florida, LA ie lower Alabama

I shot rodeo with canon 70 -200 is 2.8 but heavy to carry in ring dodging cows and bulls. Now shoot 70-200 f4 without is. Much better and mobile. A little slow but 7D helps, is not much help with fast moving sports
Frank