Well, at what I can afford right now....yes.
Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...
I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!
I think all of us said that f/2.8 is a minimum. F/2 is better. Do you really think more reach and less light is the right decision?
I implore you not to buy the slow telezoom. It'll be on ebay after your first game.
A little more money spent now (say on a used 200mm f2.8L) will make a world of difference.
Pay cheap, pay twice.
There is a lot of gear snobbery on these forums, and it's all very easy for folk with big deep pockets to tell you to spend lots of money for the best results. And whilst they are generally right, they also generally lack self-awareness.
Not everybody has big deep pockets. Not everybody with deep pockets wants to empty them in a camera shop.
I don't have big deep pockets, and I'm not suggesting you go nuts with the visa card either, i'm just trying to suggest decent ways forward that will suit the money you've allocated for this job.
A used 200mm f2.8L II isn't a vast stretch, but is a different world in terms of capabilities.
AF needs light to work, so bright lenses really are best, especially as ALL canon DSLRS have centre spots that work even better with fast lenses, this includes the T2i and the 6D.
Putting a slow lens on either of these cameras is going to handicap them. With a fast lens they should be able to do a good job.
I'm not a gear snob, I've just walked this path.
I can guarantee that you'll be back a week after buying the slow telezoom asking 'what now?'
Save yourself that week, and save yourself the money you'll chuck away. I don't have shares in canon so my only interest here is stopping a fellow 'tog making the mistakes I once made.