brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Paul, I simply responded to the OP's request for comments. And, I maintain, I would not want a lens that required me to set the ISO to such a high number in order to use it.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

So he likes his 100-400mm better than his 600mm, what does this have to do with the subject at hand????

Rejecting controlled lab tests is the favorite way fanboys like to justify their own biased opinions. Even Canon quotes DXO Marks lab tests when those tests FAVOR a Canon product.

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

I have been shooting with a L glass 70-200 f/2.8 and a 7D MKII indoor hockey. I shoot leagues that play in local rinks and arenas and have had f/2.8 and bump my ISO up to 2500 to get a photo. If he is shooting in a pro arena his F4 and ISO low setting will still be hard to get a good photo. Guess he will go Sigma for the f/2.8 and not the Canon f/4.0. Good luck and let us know what you purchase and how the photos come out.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

I have meet Jeff before and yes he uses his 100-400 II often. But being a Pro and the level of play he shoots allows him to do that. Pro and D1 College venues will have what is called TV lighting. Lighting which allows you to shoot in the 3500 ISO range or a bit less. Having TV broadcast lighting allows you to shoot an F4 lens if you have a decent body. The last time I shot at the Cowboy Death Star in Arlington TX I wore sunglasses while I shot. I shoot D1 College Football & Basketball down to small school football and basketball. A fast lens is a must.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Yeah, I'm certainly no pro but I am a peeper too, especially with macro and birding where heavy cropping comes into play. I moved to high mega pixel full frames because of that and try to keep the ISO below 640, even 400 can get noisy with heavy cropping.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Absolutely you need the speed of the 2.8 for indoor sports, but unless you need the zoom capabilities, the Canon 300mm f2.8L (non-IS version 1) is less than half the price (used), lighter, sharper and has faster AF.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Of these two and the use definitely the Sigma. Faster shutter speed no matter what.
I love my 100 - 400mm but it definitely is not an indoor sports lens compared to the Sigma.
300mm indoors should be way plenty too.

photomarkz Loc: parma hts,ohio

i looked at the sigma lens and test reports. most said the lens is soft at 300mm. i bought a canon is 300 f4 L lens. Plenty fast enough for hockey. it is tack sharp.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

The DX is able to handle higher ISO, but I think the Canon is still a better choise, it has more reach (although not by much), but it is way better at autofocusing, the Sigma can't keep up here, it is also better optically! And to top it all off, you'll save a bundle!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

He uses the 100-400 Mk II at the Olympics (Summer and Winter) No special lighting there. His Winter sport is Hockey, but he photographs everything he can when he isn't shooting his sport. Summer Olympics is water polo. And again he photographs everything he can when the swimmers aren't competing.

MT is really trying hard to dispute this but only because he has a camera store and the markup on Sigma and Tamron is probably higher which is good for business. But by reading most of what he has to say, he is so biased toward Canon and loves, loves, loves Nikon, it's no wonder that he NEVER has anything good to say about Canon. It's ridiculous to be so biased. I sometimes kid around with my friends that shoot with Nikon equipment, but never have I seen anyone that is so biased toward Canon equipment as MT. I'm sure there are some 3rd party companies that make products that work well with Canon and or Nikon etc., but they never seem to be 100% compatible with every camera body. What I'm saying is that some of them have issues with focus hunting or front focusing etc. Some simply give error messages. I see this all the time when I read things here on UHH. Also, I see less Canon gear for sale than anything else. Why is that? Because it's good gear and people usually don't sell it unless they decide to buy a new release just because.

Vector

I know someone who shot high school and college hockey with the Sigma (probably the version before the one mentioned by the OP) and would definitely say get the Sigma. He shot on a Canon 60D, using Alien Bee lighting and would get very sharp shots wide open. In fact, he would blow them up to banner size and the pics would be very sharp. When shooting sports, especially fast ones like hockey, shutter speed is very important and I don't know what ISO would get the Canon to the right speed (500th at least, 800th to 1000th better). If if you got to that ISO, what noise you'd have.