Sigma 300mm f2.8...opinions for sports?

[namasste]

aside from the fact that its a fast prime, does anyone here have much in the way of an opinion on this glass (or better yet, first hand experience?) I've seen some stuff on Miranda but I don't know the folks writing there and was hoping a POTN'r might chime in.

Have the chance to pick one up for $1650 in like new condition. Good value???

[In2Photos]

I know a guy that had the Nikon version. IMO the shots looked really good. The one thing that people alwasy mention about the prime is that the zoom (120-300) is just as good, if not better, and the same price. But in your case $1650 in like new condition doesn't sound bad at all. I don't know what kind of resale value is on this lens though as it just isn't common enough.

[Jman13]

For $1650, that's a great deal. Snatch it up! If you were buying new, I'd go with the 120-300 f/2.8...which is just as sharp as the prime, but it's more expensive than that.

[namasste]

thanks. yeah, it's a rare one but the price seems solid. I didn't really care for the 120-300 which is why I thought the prime might be a better option. The 120-300 might have been a bad copy though. As for resale, that's a great point as I'd probably only be buying the Sigma as a stopgap until I could sell it and buy the Canon.

[crazyskillz07]

Just keep saving for the canon bro! :lol:

[namasste]

Just keep saving for the canon bro! :lol:
Yer probably right. Immediate gratification is getting the best of me.

[ed rader]

thanks. yeah, it's a rare one but the price seems solid. I didn't really care for the 120-300 which is why I thought the prime might be a better option. The 120-300 might have been a bad copy though. As for resale, that's a great point as I'd probably only be buying the Sigma as a stopgap until I could sell it and buy the Canon.


a used 300L f4 IS would be a better stopgap if you don't need f 2.8. you may even decide to keep the lens :D.

ed rader

[namasste]

a used 300L f4 IS would be a better stopgap if you don't need f 2.8. you may even decide to keep the lens :D.

ed rader that's the thing, 2.8 isn't even enough far too often. Shot a girls varsity match last night and by mid match I was -1/3 at f2.8 3200ISO and only 1/400. I hate the look of the flash on a pitch but I really don't think it's going to be an option. I posted about using three flash guns in the Flash forum and I'm thinking I might set one in each corner on stands or clamped to anything I can find and keep one on camera. That should light almost half the field (not quite but close I'd bet) and eliminate some of the problem. Sound like a plan?

[bobbyz]

Scott, I also agree save for the canon 300mm f2.8 IS or not. There is no comparison. I got 120-300mm f2.8 and just picked canon 300mm f2.8 IS. Canon is the way to go.

[namasste]

Scott, I also agree save for the canon 300mm f2.8 IS or not. There is no comparison. I got 120-300mm f2.8 and just picked canon 300mm f2.8 IS. Canon is the way to go.I know, I gotta fight the urge. I got rid of the 120-300 b/c I just didn't like the look of the images from it. I also sold a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 a while back for the same reason. Not knocking the Siggy's as I've seen some beautiful images others have produced with them but I just don't think its for me.

[kini]

At $1650 I'd say go for it. The non IS Canon in similar condition will be another $1000. How many photos will you miss between now and when you've saved the money for the Canon?

Also the 120-300 used like new can be had for $1800-$2000. The zoom is a very nice feature.

Sure not as sharp as the Canon and if you don't like the Sigma you buy you can always resell it for about what you pay for it. Consider it a rental fee if you lose a little.

I just bought a used 120-300 and am looking forward to trying it out in a couple of weeks.

Gene