brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

No, no hockey.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Yes, I have the 100-400MK2 and a 500/4 but I use them for birding and only on sunny days, would love to compare the 500 to your son's 300.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The non-IS 300 f2.8 is a bargain (https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/300mm-f28.htm). On the other hand, the 500 f4 is in a class of its own and one hell of a lens.

jameyward Loc: North Carolina

I own both of these lenses that I use on my 1DX Mk2. I shoot a lot of high school sports at night and under horrible gymnasium light. I started with the 100-400 Mk2 but bought the Sigma to handle the low light situations better. The Sigma is a GREAT lens but is a tad bit slower on the auto focus for moving objects. Even though I could shoot at higher ISO’s with the Canon lens, I prefer a much lower ISO with the Sigma in difficult light. Additionally, I use the 2x Sigma teleconverter with it and it works great

gwilliams6

Go with the Sigma, I agree with MT Shooter here. As a longtime hockey shooter at all levels, high school, college and pros, go for the faster lens. With faster lens you can use lower ISO and any crops or blowups will retain better image quality than if you are forced to shoot at higher ISO due to slower Canon lens. Yes even with modern camera sensors that do well at higher ISO, you are still better off shooting with the faster lens. Cheers

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Hello go for the Canon you won’t regret it in long run.

For indoors I’d get a 70-200L f2.8.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The Sigma won't be as sharp.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

As an owner and user of the Canon 100-400 II.... I can tell you for certain you should get the Sigma.

The Canon is an great lens. But it is NOT an indoor lens. And I doubt you will ever need more than 300mm for hockey, anyway.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Really? Lab tests clearly show the Sigma blows the Canon away for sharpness (by 33% actually!).
Where do you get YOUR data from?

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Sigma-120-300mm-F28-DG-OS-HSM-S-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1469_1009_1063_1009

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

That's funny! I can count on one hand the number of times I've set my Canon 7D Mark IIs to any ISO under 400.... and I often use them to ISO 3200, 6400.... and sometimes to ISO 8000, 12800 or even 16000 (with some extra noise reduction in post processing).

In my opinion, anyone who's "afraid" of high ISOs on recent DSLRs is simply looking at their images WAAAAYYY too large on their monitors. They're the only person who will ever see their images "at 100%". On a modern monitor with a 24MP camera, that's like making a 60 x 40 inch print, then viewing it from 18 or 20" away.... which is ridiculously overly critical of image qualities. By the time the image is resized for whatever will be done with it, all the "badness" they're seeing at 100% will have disappeared. Even if they actually made a five foot wide print, no one would ever view it that close. To actually see the image, one will have to back off to 6 or 8 feet and won't see the individual pixels.

Below is a test shot I made with APS-C, 20MP Canon 7D Mark II at ISO 16000, shot RAW with care to avoid under-exposure (and with 100-400 II, it so happens, at 158mm wide open at f/5), converted with Lightroom 6 without any added noise reduction. The only adjustments to the image were to increase contrast a little (high ISO reduces dynamic range)....



As you can see from the ridiculously enlarged detail on the right (I'm guessing it's close to 100%), there's some noise in this image. But IMO it's pretty darned well controlled, even with only default NR in Lightroom 6 applied (none applied in-camera, since image was shot RAW). I'd have no problem making a quality 8x10" print from this image.

One of the problems with digital photography is that people can now look at their images hugely magnified and be unrealistically critical of them.... looking for absolute quality at a pixel level, where it's not necessary or even possible.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Completely agree. I regularly shoot at or above ISO 6400 and at 12,800 when I need to, and noise is not an issue, even when printed at large sizes, when viewed from “normal” distances.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

Shot a rodeo weekend before last at 16,000 ISO. Cleared a little over 800 so far in print purchases. 16x20 largest print ordered so far. I love how non sports shooters interdict their selves into a conversion that they have no knowledge of.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

From using it and owning one and from my friends that own them. I think all those lab tests are bullshit anyway. They are skewed and unbelievable.

A friend and pro photographer Jeff Cable recommends the Canon 100-400 and he leaves his $12000 600mm lens home now when he shoots at the Olympics and Africa safari's.

Please feel free to look him up: http://www.jeffcable.com/

A statement from him: Canon 100-400 II

For all those times when I need to photograph something from a distance, I rely on the Canon 100-400mm II lens. This is the second revision of this lens and much much sharper than the first version. Unlike the first push/pull version, this new 100-400 is a twist zoom lens. I use this lens on a tripod at the back of almost every temple and church. I also use this lens for a majority of my sports and wildlife photography when I can not get close to my subject.

His Gear:

http://www.jeffcable.com/mygear

gwilliams6

As a pro of forty years, using Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras, yes the modern sensors do well with high ISO, yet all you folks pushing the slower Canon lens over the faster Sigma are missing one IMPORTANT fact. In low light, like in the OP's hockey games indoors , the focusing system on his camera will work markedly better and faster in both acquisition AND tracking in autofocus with the faster glass. That can be a make or break situation in getting that quick sports moment. As a pro who has shot hundreds of hockey games, yes, I always opt for the faster glass when shooting indoors, ALWAYS.

Hockey is a fast moving sports,not like taking photos of your posing cat, sorry nice cat photo, but no comparison to what the OP needs. Outdoors I can use my slower long lenses with less issues for sports and wildlife. I love my Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm f5-6.3 for outdoors, but indoors I am using a 70-200mm f2.8, or 300mm f2.8 . Cheers

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Alan, I'm certainly not critical of your technique. I'm simply saying that in what I do, I like to keep the ISO set low. Granted, I do not do sports photography, and I may be 'pixel peeping' more than I need to, but I like the results I get.