Although both are currently out of stock, how does the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L ($1,699 refurb on Canon's site) compare to the Canon EF 28-300 f3.5/5.6 ($1,828 refurb on Canon's site) for shooting sporting events? Is it worth trading the 2.8L on the 70-200 for the higher "zoom" on the 28-300?
I've never used the super zoom, so I can't attest to the distortion issues brought up on various review sites. Depending on the sport, the wide angle range of the lens will probably be unnecessary most of the time. If you're shooting the field, the longer end will use up the bulk of your shots. I would argue that 200mm at @ f/2.8, 280mm @ f/4 and 400mm @ f/5.6 are more useful than an insane zoom range with variable slow apertures. If you're looking for a versatile multipurpose lens with minimum necessary distortion, the 28-300 probably fits the bill. Neither lens is very space efficient, so I didn't consider it. If it were me, and I needed a lens for sports, I'd consider the 70-200 the more appropriate choice; . My chief bias being addicted to wide apertures more so than zoom range.