200mm f2.0 vs 300mm f2.8 for indoor soccer

[wq9nsc]

In a few months my daughter will be playing again with an indoor soccer league and the facility where they play most of their games is a horribly lit dome (mixed mercury vapor and high pressure sodium bulbs with a few very bright areas and lots of dimly lit portions of the field).  Last year I experimented using my 70-200mm f2.8 with and without a 1.4X (1DX M2 body) and the results were decent but I am trying to decide whether a 200mm prime with a 1 f stop advantage would be better than the longer reach 300mm @ f2.8.  

I have gotten spoiled by the outdoor season where I did photography for the high school varsity and JV teams under great lighting.  I realize that indoor results under horrible lighting will never approach the ease of getting outdoor shots but I am confident that I can do better and moving up a level in glass is a step in the right direction.

First shot is of my daughter charging to the ball shot indoors, ISO 20,000, 1/640, f2.8 (70-200mm @200mm); second shot is outdoor HS varsity squad using the same lens with 1.4X converter and ISO set to 160.  The 400mm 5.6 also got a lot of use this season and worked quite well but would be useless indoors.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

This is the lens I would choose, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens.  Sigma has a 1.4x tel-con for it, also.

I use one on my 1Dx all the time for this type situations.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1wrote:

This is the lens I would choose, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens.  Sigma has a 1.4x tel-con for it, also.

I use one on my 1Dx all the time for this type situations.

---

I agree the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport would be the lens of choice.

Just be aware they are heavy lenses weighing almost 7.5 lbs, so, plan on using at least a monopod. 

[ebiggs1]

"...the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport would be the lens of choice."

The S version wasn't an option when I bought mine.  If it was I would have opted for it.  If someone is considering the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens, which is a dream lens, I doubt the weight is an issue. If memory serves me it is nearly 6 pounds.  Not to mention nearly six grand!

One of my buds has the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens. I have borrowed it several times.  It is unbelievable and real gem of a lens.  The Siggy is just better for this application.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1wrote:

"...the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport would be the lens of choice."

The S version wasn't an option when I bought mine. 

---

The OS version wasn't available when I bought mine, still a great lens for field sports under artificial lighting (indoor or night).

[ebiggs1]

"The OS version wasn't available when I bought mine, ..."

I have/had both the OS and non-OS.  Great lenses.  Unique lenses since no body makes a similar big fast constant aperture zoom like this one.

[wq9nsc]

Thank you TTMartin and ebiggs for your advice and information.  I will definitely look closely at the Sigma 120-300 lens since it wasn't in my original decision set.  I will check to see whether anyone rents this lens because i would like to try it and assess how it does at maximum aperture which is my major critieria since it will be used primarily for indoor/night use.

My only experience with Sigma lenses was a couple of decades ago and the company's offerings have changed a lot since then.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

Rodger,

If you choose the big Siggy make sure you get the S or Sports version. 

Optically it’s unchanged from previous versions. Optically they are all the same. But the big change is it’s compatible with Sigma’s USB dock. 

There's no question Sigma is different now. The repair service has greatly improved. Their releasing world-class lenses right and left. Adding the USB dock. Improved quality control.

I attend several Jayhawk basketball games each season and I have noticed some of the pro sports photogs are using the S.  I wouldn't say it is as sharp as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, one of my most favorite lenses BTW, but you wouldn't want to live on the difference.