Help With Sports Lens - Canon or Sigma

[elguevon]

Longtime viewer, first time poster.

I currently own a Canon 40D and I'm looking to purchase a lens for shooting a variety of indoor/outdoor prep sports. After eliminating my desired lens (Canon 300mm 2.8L IS USM [~$4k]) for economic reasons, I've narrowed my decision down to either a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM [~$1.5k] or the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 APO EX IF HSM DG [~$2.5k].

I need the 2.8 focal to allow for low-light shooting. I've scoured the reviews of each lens and frankly I'm stuck. Each has their trade-offs.

1) Go with the Canon Pros

Almost $1k cheaper, even after buying a 1.4x extender.
Lighter lens that can easily be a carry-around and not having to rely on a monopod when using over a longer outing.
Canon on Canon.Cons

Range is limited. It's still only a 200mm lens, thus limiting the reach of the entire varsity baseball/soccer field, hockey rink, etc.
Depth of Field inferior compared to 300mm lens.2) Go with the Sigma Pros

Greater range versatility with 300mm @ 2.8.
Better ability to limit the depth of field.Cons

Reviews says @300mm image is softer.
Reviews says AF and action shots are not as quick as Canon
Heavier, making it tough for handhelds over a long duration.
Price is about $1k more than the Canon.Any insight or opinions would be greatly appreciated. I'd also LOVE to see your best sports action shots with either of these lenses. Thanks.

[dshirey]

I would personally go for the Canon. I have the 70-200 f/4L and love it. Focus is fast, silent, and spot on. The only drawback to it is that it isn't the 2.8. If you want more reach you can just use a 1.4x or 2x TC and the images still look great. Plus, what are you going to do if you need to get something that is a little closer than 128mm can handle unless you are running a 2nd body with a shorter lens on it. You will be more than happy with the 70-200 and you will have a damn good lens plus an extra grand in your pocket to spend on other gear.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't aperture control DOF and not focal length? If I am right both are 2.8 so it wouldn't matter that much.

[manutd101]

I'd go with the canon for sure, maybe toss in a 1.4 TC as well.

[Cadwell]

I'm currently using the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I don't know who's cack-handed reviews you've been reading...

The Sigma outperforms the Canon on every benchmark. It is optically superior throughout its range, the AF is significantly faster and more accurate particularly during tracking high speed subjects using AI Servo AF. It is nowhere near soft at the long end (unlike the dear old 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM which does go a little soft but is still very acceptable at 200mm).

What the Canon has in its favour is lighter weight, weather sealing and image stabilisation. Those are why I have one.

I do wish people on this (and other forums) would stop posting about lenses they don't own and have never got closer to than B&Hs web site.

[Cadwell]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't aperture control DOF and not focal length? If I am right both are 2.8 so it wouldn't matter that much.

Consider yourself corrected. Depth of field is dependant on aperture, focal length and subject distance.

[khall]

I have seen some excellent sports pictures posted on this Forum taken with the Sigma 120mm-300mm F2.8

[convergent]

I would respectively disagree with Cadwell. I have had the 70-200 2.8 IS and 120-300 f/2.8 for years and the 70-200 is definitely way faster to AF and a bit sharper. Now if you are talking about the 70-200 w/TC1.4, I might agree with you.

That said, the 120-300 is an excellent lens for the purpose you are looking... baseball, soccer, and possibly hockey. It is plenty fast and plenty sharp for those purposes and it responds very well with a TC1.4. For soccer, I almost always used it with a TC1.4 until it got dark, and then I could drop it off. I wish Canon would make a lens to compete with this, because I love the focal range.

The biggest negative for the 120-300 is that it will not AF and zoom at the same time. You have to train yourself to zoom and then take your hand off the zoom ring, or you'll get a lot of OOF shots. This really isn't that big of a deal since shooting sports you usually are at one end or the other. I also find the ergonomics and build quality to be a little inferior to Canon's whites.

I shoot primarily youth and high school sports, and if it were the only lens I were using, I'd prefer the 120-300 over the 70-200 any day. But, once I got some big whites (400 2.8 and 200 1.8) I have pretty much abandoned the 120-300 for most purposes, unless I want to travel light (light being a relative term). You can use the 120-300 without a monopod if you are used to working with heavy gear, but it really works better with a pod.

[dshirey]

Consider yourself corrected. Depth of field is dependant on aperture, focal length and subject distance.

Thank you very much. That is why I like forums, someone always corrects me =).

[05Xrunner]

you can easily find the 120-300 for a minty used copy in the $1800 range. Id def choose it for sports over the 70-200 for the added range. IS isnt going to be that helpful anyway with sports

[rabidcow]

The 70-200 will come with a learning curve, the 120-300 will come with one hell of a learning curve.

Keep that in mind when you make your purchase, every lens requires that you learn it.

[Cadwell]

I would respectively disagree with Cadwell. I have had the 70-200 2.8 IS and 120-300 f/2.8 for years and the 70-200 is definitely way faster to AF and a bit sharper. Now if you are talking about the 70-200 w/TC1.4, I might agree with you.



:lol: Not my experience at all... when the 70-200/2.8L IS USM is incapable of tracking rally cars coming right at me and everything starts getting back-focused, I swap over to the 120-300mm and magically all my shots are back in focus again. That's consistent with all 3 of my camera bodies, btw. Now I'll grant you that the HSM implementation on the 120-300mm isn't as smooth as the USM on the 70-200mm, which you barely notice working, and that might lead you to feel that the 70-200mm is faster, but my practical experience is that the 70-200mm is noticeably slower in tracking.

[Simon Harrison]

The biggest negative for the 120-300 is that it will not AF and zoom at the same time. You have to train yourself to zoom and then take your hand off the zoom ring, or you'll get a lot of OOF shots. .

I disagree with that. I will regularly zoom out while focusing on a pack of race cars coming straight towards me. My experience over the last two years of using the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is that it can handle this without any problems whatsoever.

Simon.

[convergent]

:lol: Not my experience at all... when the 70-200/2.8L IS USM is incapable of tracking rally cars coming right at me and everything starts getting back-focused, I swap over to the 120-300mm and magically all my shots are back in focus again. That's consistent with all 3 of my camera bodies, btw. Now I'll grant you that the HSM implementation on the 120-300mm isn't as smooth as the USM on the 70-200mm, which you barely notice working, and that might lead you to feel that the 70-200mm is faster, but my practical experience is that the 70-200mm is noticeably slower in tracking.

Could be the difference in what we are shooting. I shoot youth sports and you shoot cars. With youth sports, often the "lock on" speed is more important than tracking since the closing rate isn't as fast as with a car. I've primarily used the lens on 1DMII and 1DMIIN bodies. Since I moved to the MIII, I've not really used it much since I primarily use the Canon big whites which do blow the 120-300 out of the water. I just wish Canon made one of these. But all of that said, like I said... the Sigma is an excellent lens for youth field sports.

I disagree with that. I will regularly zoom out while focusing on a pack of race cars coming straight towards me. My experience over the last two years of using the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is that it can handle this without any problems whatsoever.

Simon.

Not sure how to respond on that one. Most of the reviews I've read in the past agreed with the idea that it won't AF while zooming. Maybe they changed it on newer ones, but I'd be surprised. Mine is several years old and I had quite a bit of trouble with OOF shots when I first bought it. After doing some research, I found that zooming while tracking was a common issue and once I stopped doing that I had no more problems.

[Cadwell]

the Canon big whites which do blow the 120-300 out of the water. I just wish Canon made one of these.

I'd be very disappointed in any prime which couldn't focus faster than a zoom... :lol: Do I wish Canon made one? No. Canon's zooms longer than 200mm are all a bit disappointing it isn't something they seem to do very well.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Everyone's has an opinion, the only thing you can be sure of its not yours. Rent each lens and see for yourself, small investment to make sure your happy with your purchase.

[Tee Why]

Canon and put the rest towards fast primes.

[Borderfox]

Sigma 120-300 @ 300mm
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/BAD20878.jpg

[elguevon]

I appreciate all the responses. I placed a call to rent the Sigma lens and it will be arriving next week. I'll do the same thing with the Canon and see what happens. This is about the only way to really make a sound decision as the forum demonstrates everyone has got their preference. Thanks again.

[eigga]

Save a little longer and get the 300... if its what you want and need you will end up upgrading anyway.

[Aust2000]

Looking forward to your comparison.
I use the 120-300mm on a 40D and love it.
This gallery shows Field Hockey taken at night under lights. 95% of the shots are at ISO3200 f2.8 centre point focus, AI, simultaneous zooming and focus. I found that the 40D focus speed at night with the 120-300mm was almost instantaneous. No problem keeping pace with running players
http://LeedingEdge.smugmug.com/gallery/5159346_zPFGb/1/312389597_eQNrN

[GSH]

I appreciate all the responses. I placed a call to rent the Sigma lens and it will be arriving next week. I'll do the same thing with the Canon and see what happens. This is about the only way to really make a sound decision as the forum demonstrates everyone has got their preference. Thanks again.

Very sensible. At least you can then choose after expereince with both lenses rather than reading internet reviews and listening to ill-informed gossip ;)

[bobbyz]

Thing with Sigma 120-300mm is that in the end everyone who owns one ends up with Canon 300mm/400 f2.8 IS. main thing going for Sigma is price and then zoom range so you don't need 2 bodies at the same time. So you should try both and see which one works for you.

[amfoto1]

I've not used the 120-300, but have heard very good reports about it.

I'd miss IS. The 70-200/2.8 IS is one of my primary user lenses. I carry a 1.4X for use with it, when I don't have the 300/2.8 IS handy.

Yeah, yeah... I know someone is going to respond that IS is of little use for sports shooting. I disagree. For one thing, it can help insure a sharp shot even at faster speeds. Two, I like to do slower shutter pans and such some of the time, with and without flash, just because I get a bit tired of seeing every shot be a "frozen in mid air" sports moment. If I were shooting for Sports Illustrated, I might feel differently.

[Chris Brooks]

How about a different setup than either of those lenses.

I shoot sports for a college athletics department, and have been using the 70-200 2.8 for its versatility in and outside. Great images, but the length is limiting outside. Plus, under poor lighting conditions the 2.8 is pushing it.

I just sold the lens and am purchasing the Sigma 100-300 F4 and the Canon 135 F2 L. I also have a Kenko 1.4 TC. The Sigma gets terrific reviews and can cover everything outdoors during the day, plus the samples I've seen with the 1.4 TC are close to the Canon 100-400 wide open.

The 135 F2 gives you better quality indoors than the the 120-300 2.8 will and will allow you to shoot at ISO 800 rather than 1600. Plus, it can be used outdoors when the action is in front of you, and works great with the TC giving you a 190 2.8 prime.

Basically, I decided to give up 100mm of length at night for field sports in order to get better quality pictures with the 135 L. Plus, you can get both lenses for about $1400-1500 total and will save about $500.

[Borderfox]

Personally I will never buy the Canon 300 f2.8 as I need a zoom, Showjumping has so many jumps around a large arena that I can cover nearly all of them with the Sigma. Went to a Canon open day today and tried out the 200 f2/ 300 f2.8/ 400 f2.8/ 500 f4 and all of them except the 200 f2 are very limiting in that you have no zoom or leeway in competitiors coming towards you.