Sports: Canon vs Sigma 300 2.8 vs Sigma 120-300 2.8

[HuskiesD1]

I'm going to be shooting a lot of high school sports this fall, with at least four more football games coming my way.

My longest lens for my 20D is a Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?" Noting that affording a Canon 300 2.8 is up there in price. Anyone have experience with the other lenses?

[Mark Vuleta]

I've never used any of the 300mm lenses but if you do a search here for shots taken by "wazza", he uses a 120-300 to great effect, its a great lens in the right hands (he is currantly using on a MK3 and has recently posted some with 1.4 & 2.0 TC on and they are stunning). Its also quite a bit cheaper than the canon 300 2.8

Mark

[dfindr]

I'm going to be shooting a lot of high school sports this fall, with at least four more football games coming my way.

My longest lens for my 20D is a Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?" Noting that affording a Canon 300 2.8 is up there in price. Anyone have experience with the other lenses?

The Canon 300 f/2.8 without question. It takes both TC's well with very little degradation in IQ, especially with the 1.4.

[René Damkot]

Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Nope. With a 1.4 TC it's a 98-280 f/4. With a 2x TC it's 140-400 f/5.6!

[In2Photos]

I ahve a friend that shoots the Sigma 300 2.8 on a Nikon d200 with great results although he complains that sometimes the 300 is just too long when the action is coming towards him. This is why he picked up the 120-300. I don't know if he has used it yet though. I was suprised at how small the Sigma 300 is physically. I hope to get the 120-300 myself sometime as well. The Canon is the best of the 3 but at almost twice the price.

[KIPAX]

Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?

The canon 300 is the better lens to answer your question. however I think its the wrong question.

for sport a 300 prime is usually used with a second body holding a smaller lens.. usually the 70-200.. the sigma 120-300 is a lot more versatile and although considered the lesser quality lens.. you certainly wouldnt be dissapointed.. I know the differnces but I am sticking with my sigma 120-300

[GSH]

I'd rule out the Sigma prime and decide whether you want versatility, price and a Very high Quality zoom against IS, Prime Quality, and one of the fastest focussing Canon Lenses available.

I wouldn't trade my 120-300 for anything. If i was as good as the lens i'd be a happy bunny :D

[Sprout Crumble]

Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

[asylumxl]

Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

Ditto :)

[GSH]

Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

I don't believe i said anything derogatory about the Sigma prime, but if i (and note i said i'd rule it out), were in the market for a 300 prime and price wasn't an issue, i'd buy the Canon 300 f2.8 IS. It just can't be beat.

That said, i got the 120-300 because of the zoom and and the excellent quality as it suits my needs better.

[Tall_Paul_2000]

There are a great many people who consider the 120-300 to be optically superior to sigma's own 300mm prime.

I had the 120-300 when I started out with sports and got some great results with it - it is a cracking lens. The versatillity of it really does make life a lot easier. As Kipax rightly says, its ideal if you do not have the luxury of 2 bodies.

The 120-300 is slower focussing and a little less contrasty than the Canon (I graduated to that after the Sigma) however its not a deal-breaker - and besides, you can give the contrast an extra bump in Photoshop!!!

Recommending one over the other is hard. The Canon is the better lens. However if you only have 1 camera body and you are looking for something that is versatile and gives very very good results, then the Sigma will not disappoint at all.

[HuskiesD1]

Regardless of my current equipment set, I am a college student who considers the Canon 300 2.8 maybe a little too much of an investment.

I've heard the Canon 300 2.8 is the fastest focusing lens out there, so I don't expect anything to live up to it's speed. Thankfully I haven't been spoiled by trying it yet!

[fotografiacoppola]

Well I HAVE TRIED a 300mmm F2.8 and the sigma, and sadly, the canon is just awesome!
I say 'sadly' because I cant afford it right now!!! :-(

http://fotografiacoppola.com

[Dennis_Hammer]

I have and use with great regurality the canon 300 2.8L and it has blow your mind image quality and breathtaking speed auto focus wise. It does not take long to become used to the reach and position yourself properly and if you need to crop you will not be disappointed. My set up has always been 2 40d's the 300 and the 70-200, but recently for night football I have been using the 85 1.2 with a 580ex on it for those times the action runs up on you.

[RobertZ]

I recently purchased the 120-300 (though I wanted the 300L). What I like is the flexibility of the zoom. What I don't like is it is a zoom. It's unreasonable to think it will be as sharp as a 300 2.8 wide open. However, it does a very fine job in the right hands. Reality is though, a used 300 is more than twice the price of a 120-300. For many thats hard to swallow.

[MJPhotos24]

I've owned both the Sigma 120-300 and 300 2.8 Canon - w/o a doubt the Canon is better and much sharper/faster - it's sharper than my 400 and takes the 1.4 great. Unfortunately it doesn't get used as much nowadays except in smaller stadiums but won't be getting sold any time soon.

[JPR Images]

I shoot a lot of high school sports and the Sigma 120-300 works extremely well for me. The Canon 300 f2.8 just wasn't an option at the price they want. At this point even if I had the money I don't think I would want to be locked in to a fixed focal length of 300. I really like the flexibility of the 120-300 zoom. For night time football and soccer I have quit carrying a second body, just the Sigma 120-300 on my 1DMIII on my monopod with 580 flash mounted below the camera. You can see my work at www.jprimages.com

Again, this is what works for me.

[clarence]

You can see my work at www.jprimages.com (http://www.jprimages.com)

Lots of nice work JPR... great exposures, both flashed and non. Definitely not over-flashed. Great focus and true colors too.

[JPR Images]

Thanks for your comments, Clarence. Currently I am shooting soccer and just now ramping up on basketball. I know there is a lot of discussion about having the "right" gear but sometimes I think it is best to just get out there and use what we have and learn how to use it well. :)

[RobertZ]

Nice shots JPR. I put mine for sale but have had second thoughts because of the flexibility of the zoom. I love the sharpness of the 300 2.8. The 120-300 has excellent bokeh but will never be as sharp as a prime. I've been trying the fixed FL of 300 and I can see I'm spoiled by zooms. What I really do not like about this lens is the Sigma finish. Mine is nearly flawless and that is probably not a good thing. I try to baby it because these things get ugly with abuse. The Canons look more like battle scars.

[slimenta]

I own the sigma 120-300, 2.8 and used to use it a lot. It is an excellent lens particularly if you throw in the phrase, "for the money." Having said that it is impossible to think that any zoom lens will be as good as a fixed focal length lens. The 300 mm 2.8 is a superior lens in every way. Having said that, the 120-300 isn't bad and I wouldn't feel bad about using it.

[RobertZ]

I think the "for the money" is key. A used 120-300 is equivalent in price to the 100-400 and 70-200 IS. Flexibility is probably even more descriptive of it. If you don't want to carry two bodies the 120-300 is a great choice.

I'm starting to realize more and more that I've been having difficulty with it (and a couple other zooms) because the 7D's RAW images need more post-processing than the 5D II. I shot some morning soccer on Saturday and found that my keeper rate was much higher this time, after dialing in the 7D a bit more. I'm still having a bit of a tough time with the post-processing of colors, etc though.

I'm still debating sacraficing the flexibility for a fixed 300mm. I don't do this for money so convenience is almost as important at pure IQ.

http://i46.tinypic.com/desh0w.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/noezrs.jpg

[RobertZ]

Not a keeper (no ball, no face, no action,..) but pointing out the bokeh with this lens it does a nicer job than you'd get with other zooms like the 100-400.

http://i47.tinypic.com/28u3fnq.jpg