I know kady05 on this forum uses Canon and has a 70-200mm f/4. Love her photos! I also think that Canon makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 (I know Nikon does) if you want to spend over $2k
Aw thank you!
Yes I have the 70-200mm f/4 lens, so not the f/2.8, but if you *don't* need low light performance, then the f/4 should be just fine. I have been majorly slacking in the action shot department lately, but it's a great lens for them. I use it for portrait stuff as well.
Here's a newer portrait shot of a client dog I took with it:
FWIW, I was standing across from her, probably about.. 15' away (maybe more, I'm bad at judging distances) for this shot.
You can go to my website and/or FB page for more examples.. I'd say about 85% of my shots have been taken with the 70-200.
I think it should be plenty reach for what you want to do. Plus, if you feel like you need more you can always get an extender. Sure you can get one with more reach, but do you want to be lugging a heavy lens around all day? The f/4 version of the 70-200 is pretty lightweight, that was one reason why I picked it over the 2.8. Though of course now I want the 2.8, but the f/4 has served me well, I have zero complaints. It sells for around $550 used, you really can't beat the quality for that price, IMO.