Quote Originally Posted by Firephoto
HDNitehawk - The 70-300 L is too slow. I'm with Sean (Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.) Without the extender I would have a 2.8 between 70-200 which the 70-300 L couldn't do. I do like the weather sealing and IS though.

It seems to me you have answered your own question then. The 100-400mm will be to slow as well. Which just leaves the 70-200mm F2.8L's and the only decision there will be how much do you have to spend. Version II, Version I with IS or the Non IS Version.


The other options would be primes, are they ruled out because of flexibility? Personally for sports I would more likely to pick up my 70-200mm F2.8L II before I would pick up any of my primes in that range. But only one I have with AF quick enough is the 100mm L Macro. I owned the 100-400mm L, and I would use the 100mm L Macro over the 100-400mm and crop the shots if they were going to stay between the100 to 200mm range. (for that matter I would take any prime over the 100-400mm, the exception is the 180mm which AF is to slow).