300mm F/2.8L vs Sigma 120-300 f/2.8: any comparison?

[Krapo]

Hi all,

I am very interested in the 300mm / f2.8 combo because I like to shoot action sports and wildlife. I've heard quite some times that the Sigma at 300mm was very good, even wide open.
I was wondering how well it is compared to the reference lens for sharpness, the Canon 300 2.8L.
Any idea in terms of:
- contrast
- sharpness
- bokeh?

Does any of you has had the opportunity to use both or even better, would have a side by side comparison?

The Canon makes me drool but is almost twice as expensive. If the difference is not that huge, I would go for the Sigma. Otherwise, I will have to wait much longer... :(

Thanks!

[GSH]

The Sigma is excellent, but the Canon is absoloutely superb from what i've seen of it.

If you can afford the Canon without selling a kidney or 2 then go for it. If not, then the Sigma will serve you very well indeed.

Take a look at the Motorsports forum. Myself, Cadwell and Dave_G (plus others) all use the Sigma, whilst the likes of KennyG, IanH and others have the 300 f2.8 IS.

[Jack W.]

No experience with the Sigma, but I do have the Canon 300f/2.8L IS. As GSH has posted, it's a superb lens.
I use it bare, with a 1.4TC and with a 2xTC. This combo gives me three outstanding primes:
300f/2.8
420f/4 when used with the 1.4TC
600f/5.6 when used with the 2xTC
All with IS, which is a must for me on long lenses.
Just one sample with the 2xTC:
http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/58886755

Jack

[Cadwell]

The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L has better optics and focuses more quickly. The Sigma 120-300mm has outstanding optics for a zoom lens and also focuses quickly (just not quite as quickly as the Canon). It really rather depends on whether you want the best 300mm prime for a Canon mount or the best 300mm zoom for the Canon mount.

[Double Negative]

The Canon also has weathersealing and IS... Along with focus stop and preset.

[Krapo]

Thanks guys for your answers.


http://www.pbase.com/jacksmyname/image/58886755

Jack

Very impressive pictures Jack! I particularly like "loving care". Amazing lighting.

Obviously, it would have been interesting to see what you would have got with the Sigma under the same circumstances.

Maybe I should rent both and see by myself. Unfortunately, renting is very expensive here in Brussels, and I don't think there is a chance I can find a 120-300 for rent.

[morehtml]

The canon 300 2.8 is definitely one of the best performers I own.

[RikWriter]

I don't have any experience with the Canon 300 f2.8L, but I can tell you that the Sigma 120-300 is an excellent lens, particularly for the money.

[BigBlueDodge]

Is it fair to compare the 120-300 vs the Canon 300mm? I mean, one is a prime and the other is a zoom. One is $4000 and the other is $2000. Its like comparing the 135L f/2. to the 28-135. Both are 135mm, but one is almost 2x the cost of the other. IMO, the 120-300 ($2100) should be compared against the Canon 100-400L (Which is still not close, but closer in comparison than to the 300mm prime) although it does very well against the 300mm Canon.

I agree with what Cadwell said, one is the best 300 prime, and the other is the best 300mm zoom. Totally different beasts.

[Krapo]

I know BigBlue, but I have often see on that forum that the Sigma was "almost as good" as the 300 2.8L. I understand it's not a trully fair comparison, just like comparing the 100-400 to the Sigma, which is 2.8 constant.
But it's still worth the question when you plan to buy "a" 300 2.8. Will I be amazed enough with the Sigma while I will be blown away by the Canon (even if it means seliing my kidneys :D )?
I have checked on pbase to see examples of the Sigma but it's full of crappy pictures that don't do much good to that superb lens.
And then, I looked at Jack's pictures with the Canon... :confused:

[Jack W.]

I know BigBlue, but I have often see on that forum that the Sigma was "almost as good" as the 300 2.8L. I understand it's not a trully fair comparison, just like comparing the 100-400 to the Sigma, which is 2.8 constant.
But it's still worth the question when you plan to buy "a" 300 2.8. Will I be amazed enough with the Sigma while I will be blown away by the Canon (even if it means seliing my kidneys :D )?
I have checked on pbase to see examples of the Sigma but it's full of crappy pictures that don't do much good to that superb lens.
And then, I looked at Jack's pictures with the Canon... :confused:

First, what do you think you'll be using the lens for? If you think you'll be at 300mm most of the time, then the prime is probably the better choice.
I have a Sigma 80-400, and my wife has a Canon 100-400. Both are fine lenses, but they rarely get used anymore simply because of what we like to photograph (birds/wildlife).
Second, what about your ability to hand hold a long, heavy lens? For me, I absolutely NEED IS on a long lens. Without IS, I'd be tied to a tripod all the time. Even when I use the 300f/2.8 on a monopod, I still need the IS. I also have the 300f/4L IS, and as light as that lens is, I still need the IS (tough gettin' old :-) ). Actually, the IS feature is my first consideration. The IS, along with some other features, add to the cost of the Canon. But only you can decide if these features are worthwhile for you, and therefore worth the extra money.
If cost is what has you hesitating, maybe think about waiting a while. In a month or two, or three or four, will it be financially easier for you? If so, even though we want it "now", a lens like the 300f/2.8L IS is well worth waiting and saving for.

Jack

[MCDASIT!]

no comment on the sigma, I just got a 300 2.8-no-IS, this lens is sharp, fast and I am very happy with the results

[Krapo]

The Canon might hold its value better than the Sigma. I mean, if I manage to get a used 300 2.8L for a good price (not very common, though), I would still be able to resell it a year or two later if I need cash or if I find myself wanting for something else.
Long term rental for cheap... :)

I like sport photography, especially field hockey. A zoom might be more convenient than a prime for that application. For golf photography however, the 300mm prime is a killer!

Ah! I don't know... I think I will do what you say Jack and wait a couple or more months, and hopefully make up my mind (and save more money).

Thanks for your inputs guys!

[chrishunt]

Long term rental for cheap... :)

That's exactly my attitude and I've done the same with 3 lenses :)

It's tough finding the lenses that really fit your shooting style and buying and using them is usually the only way to really figure out what you need.

I think a comparison between the Canon 300 f/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is perfectly fair. They both shoot at 300 f/2.8! I am also interested in this comparison because I am in the market for a 300 f/2.8. I know that either of these lenses will make me very happy, but I don't know if I need the prime or zoom. I may 'rent' one as well ;)

[RikWriter]

I know BigBlue, but I have often see on that forum that the Sigma was "almost as good" as the 300 2.8L. I understand it's not a trully fair comparison, just like comparing the 100-400 to the Sigma, which is 2.8 constant.
But it's still worth the question when you plan to buy "a" 300 2.8. Will I be amazed enough with the Sigma while I will be blown away by the Canon (even if it means seliing my kidneys :D )?
I have checked on pbase to see examples of the Sigma but it's full of crappy pictures that don't do much good to that superb lens.
And then, I looked at Jack's pictures with the Canon... :confused:

I have taken a few pics with my Sigma 120-300 since I've had it. Let me know if you'd like to see some.

[Jamey S.]

Between those two lenses I think all you really need to decide is if you want a prime or the flexibility of a zoom. They are both excellent lenses. The IS is a nice bonus on the 300mm L though. Me personally, I would go for the Sigma, simply because I need the flexibility of a zoom, but if I didn't then it would be the Canon simply for the IS.

[Greg P.]

what in gods name is bokeh? stupidest word ive ever heard.

[chrishunt]

what in gods name is bokeh? stupidest word ive ever heard.

:)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

[chrishunt]

People like to use fancy words. It's all subjective anyway.

[chrishunt]

how is it pronounced? "Bo-Kuh?"

Boke Eh (like 'Okay').

[Greg P.]

so re-re. and how close is it to boquet? too close.

[Double Negative]

what in gods name is bokeh? stupidest word ive ever heard.

so ok, why not everyone forget "bokeh", and just say "whatevers not in foucs"

Because the proper term is bokeh. I'm sure the Japanese people wouldn't appreciate an American telling them a word in their language is "the stupidest they've ever heard." I'm sure there are far more in English...

[grego]

Own the 120-300 f/2.8. Have used the 300 2.8. One will be much more affordable. The sigma is no slouch, but the 300 2.8 will win any day at 300mm.

The sigma will win from 120-299.

[Krapo]

I have taken a few pics with my Sigma 120-300 since I've had it. Let me know if you'd like to see some.

Hi Rik,

Yes, that would be very useful. Thanks a lot.

[RikWriter]

Hi Rik,

Yes, that would be very useful. Thanks a lot.

These are all taken with the 2x Sigma TC.
http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/60262467.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/60029603.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/59875355.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/59350166.jpg

This one is with the 1.4X Tamron TC.
http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/59997986.jpg

[Krapo]

Very nice!
They look sharp, especially considering you used a 2xTC.
I remember the "evil duck" from another thread :)

Tough call! It's probably more reasonable to go with the Sigma. I mean, I'm not a pro, in the end. It's tough to justify such a big white pro lens (and expensive) when it's not for my living. If I were rich enough, I wouldn't care. But buying the Canon would mean sacrifying other things related to photo (new body) or not (holidays...).

[RikWriter]

Very nice!
They look sharp, especially considering you used a 2xTC.
I remember the "evil duck" from another thread :)

Tough call! It's probably more reasonable to go with the Sigma. I mean, I'm not a pro, in the end. It's tough to justify such a big white pro lens (and expensive) when it's not for my living. If I were rich enough, I wouldn't care. But buying the Canon would mean sacrifying other things related to photo (new body) or not (holidays...).

Hell, dude, I WANTED a 300 or 400 f2.8L BAD. I almost bought a beat up Mark I 400 before someone told me they were crap with TCs. But it came down to the difference of ~$2000 for the brand new 120-300 (which rightfully should have a nickname like the Bigma and Sigmonster IMHO) and a Sigma 2xTC or $3500-4000 for a beat up, used Canon 300 or 400 prime.

[Cadwell]

Mmm... a 300mm f/2.8 prime is nice and for my motorsport I'd love it. It would have been no use whatsoever to me on Saturday when bobbing around on pontoons in a dark and rainy dock in Liverpool... a 300mm f/2.8 zoom on the other hand ;)

http://photos.canoepolo.org.uk/c957686.html

Many of those were shot wide open and it was all hand held.

p.s. there are a couple of wider shots in there taken with the ef 24-105mm L zoom on the 10D body, easy enough to spot due to their CRW_ filenames.

[Double Negative]

I'm still leaning towards the 300mm f/2.8L IS even though a 1.4x TC will most likely be glued to it. This is about as much as I care to spend (no 400/500/600mm in my future). It offers weathersealing and IS over the 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm zoom, loses nothing with a 1.4x TC and even with - it's a 420mm f/4. To get that in a prime I'd need something like the 400mm f/4 DO - starting to get too expensive. Plus, the 300mm will be more versatile when I don't quite need the reach.

Even with a 2x TC it's still very good IQ-wise, and at 600mm f/5.6 - not too shabby. Certainly a lot less than a 600mm f/4 prime.

[RikWriter]

I'm still leaning towards the 300mm f/2.8L IS even though a 1.4x TC will most likely be glued to it. This is about as much as I care to spend (no 400/500/600mm in my future). It offers weathersealing and IS over the 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm zoom

AFAIK, both the 400 f5.6L and the 100-400L have weather sealing and the 100-400L also has IS. Not sure what you meant.

[RikWriter]

BTW, here's a couple more shots from this morning with the 120-300 and 2X TC...
http://www.pbase.com/image/60332919.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/60332906.jpg

[Cadwell]

AFAIK, both the 400 f5.6L and the 100-400L have weather sealing and the 100-400L also has IS. Not sure what you meant.

Nope, neither of those are weather sealed.

[RikWriter]

Nope, neither of those are weather sealed.

Really? [Johnny Carson]I did not know that. [/Johnny Carson]
Which L lenses ARE weather sealed then?

[Cadwell]

Really? [Johnny Carson]I did not know that. [/Johnny Carson]
Which L lenses ARE weather sealed then?

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS USM
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM

[Double Negative]

What Glenn said... Neither are weathersealed.

[RikWriter]

Are the 400 and 100-400 not weather-sealed because they are older designs?

[Double Negative]

Most likely. Canon seems to be weathersealing everything new these days. They're also adding or updating the IS to be tripod-aware, and adding distance information for E-TTL II.

[Travis F]

Sorry to pull up an old thread.

I just bought RikWriters 120-300 from him and I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the physical size difference is between these two lenses.

If anyone has a picture of the two side by side that would be great.

I have used a 300 2.8L before, but I have never even seen the 120-300 sigma, so I am just curious.

Thanks,
Travis

[RikWriter]

Sorry to pull up an old thread.

I just bought RikWriters 120-300 from him and I am wondering if anyone can tell me what the physical size difference is between these two lenses.

If anyone has a picture of the two side by side that would be great.

I have used a 300 2.8L before, but I have never even seen the 120-300 sigma, so I am just curious.

Thanks,
Travis

Travis,
I looked at the size difference before I decided to get the 300 f2.8L...they are almost the same size and weight. The Sigma is a tiny bit longer...less than an inch...and the Sigma is about half an inch narrower. The Sigma weighs maybe a quarter of a pound less than the Canon.

[Travis F]

Thanks for the quick reply. I figured they would be close in size, as they are both 300 f/2.8.

Man, I can't wait for this thing to get here!:D :D :D :cool:

Travis

[RikWriter]

Thanks for the quick reply. I figured they would be close in size, as they are both 300 f/2.8.

Man, I can't wait for this thing to get here!:D :D :D :cool:

Travis

I can't wait for my 300 L to get here! Should be here Tuesday.

[Travis F]

Hope you enjoy it. Very glad I could help you along in that purchase:D .

Any idea yet when mine will be here?:)

Travis

[RikWriter]

Hope you enjoy it. Very glad I could help you along in that purchase:D .

Any idea yet when mine will be here?:)

Travis

Monday or Tuesday I imagine. Priority mail from FL to MI.