Seeking advice from sports shooters

[10megapixel]

I have been using a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for football so far this season and it's doing ok as long as the action is fairly close. I am wanting more reach and have been thinking about trading for a 300mm f/4 IS, and using my 550ex with it at night. Or just getting a TC for the 70-200. What do you fellow sports shooters recommend I do?

[eigga]

I dont like the TC on my 70-200

Is the Sigma 100-300 an option?

Otherwise the 300 f/4 will work fine with flash. Just be prepared to get the flash off camera...either underneath or above on a bracket

[LBaldwin]

Forget the TC on that lens, no matter how you use it the shots will be unacceptably soft. For an emergency it can help capture a shot, but other than that it really does not work well. And only the 1.4 will attach.

My suggestion is that you save your pennies and get a used 300 2.8L. Yes I know that they are expensive, BUT you get for what you give will drastically inprove your lowlight capabilities and it is razor sharp. You don't need IS, but if you can afford it get it.

You can use the 1.4 and 2x with the 300 hundred with very little loss of IQ. Forget about the Sigma /Tamron route too. They do not focus as fast, do not resell or hold their cash value as well as a used L lens

Contact Dan Lahav / voodoo 1694. I bought my 400 from him, he a straight up good guy to do business with and often has gear for sale.

[10megapixel]

I dont like the TC on my 70-200

Is the Sigma 100-300 an option?

Otherwise the 300 f/4 will work fine with flash. Just be prepared to get the flash off camera...either underneath or above on a bracket

I don't mess with Sigma lenses anymore (Had some issues a while back and said never again) I have been looking at the the mono pod mounted flash setups and that seems to be the way to go judging by the great pics several have posted using it. Does the TC degrade image quality on the long end that much?

[10megapixel]

Forget the TC on that lens, no matter how you use it the shots will be unacceptably soft. For an emergency it can help capture a shot, but other than that it really does not work well. And only the 1.4 will attach.

My suggestion is that you save your pennies and get a used 300 2.8L. Yes I know that they are expensive, BUT you get for what you give will drastically inprove your lowlight capabilities and it is razor sharp. You don't need IS, but if you can afford it get it.

You can use the 1.4 and 2x with the 300 hundred with very little loss of IQ. Forget about the Sigma /Tamron route too. They do not focus as fast, do not resell or hold their cash value as well as a used L lens

Contact Dan Lahav / voodoo 1694. I bought my 400 from him, he a straight up good guy to do business with and often has gear for sale.

Yes, I would love to have that lens. I won't have enough pennies this season for it and I would really like the reach for the remainder of the year.

[LBaldwin]

Yes, I would love to have that lens. I won't have enough pennies this season for it and I would really like the reach for the remainder of the year.

I know exactly how you feel, it took me a real long time to get my glass. it still hurts everymonth to make that payment BUT, the images I get are off the hook and just got po'd with anything less than the best I could afford.

Like I said out a few feelers out, get a 2nd job flipping burgers, babysittin whatever it takes. You won't be sorry once you see the shot it creates.

[VinnyC01]

The next jump in glass is very expensive. I have been struggling with your dilemma for the past two weeks.

1) Know the limits of your equipment. Be great with what you have. Last year I took shots (I was very happy) with my 70-200 4.0 (day) and my sigma 70-200 2.8 (night) - a seldom used my 300 f4.0. I realized that there was no need to fight to get shots the lens could not snap onto. I still tried, but would throw out 49 out of 50.

2) At the game I shot yesterday, a pro-photo had a (what looked like a) 2x on his 70-200 f2.8. I went to his site today and the shots looked like they were shot with a 100-400 f5.6 at night, despite being a day game.

3) I have been using 70-200 f2.8 and a 300 f2.8. I agree with LBaldwin - and that is exactly what i am doing. I was supposed to buy a 300 2.8 used from my mentor. He let me borrow this weekend for a test. He decided not to sell and I decided I cannot live without it. I am moving, managing and finding money any way I can to get that baby ASAP!

[liam5100]

Whats the budget? And I know you said you wont mess with Sigma, but have you ever used any of Sigma's higher end stuff? I own a 120-300 2.8 and honestly because of that lens for football I hardly touch my 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 anymore.

And yes I do this for a living. Quick grab from Friday's game, shot with the 120-300 2.8

[10megapixel]

I owned a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro for a while and although it was a sharp lens, the AF was inferior to the Canon in low light. I also developed communication issues with it and canon bodies, I sent it off to Sigma but still had problems. Your results with the 120-300mm speak for themselves and I honestly disregarded it as an option mainly because of negative reviews (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx) regarding the AF. What does that lens go for used?

[eigga]

I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?

[10megapixel]

Whats the budget? And I know you said you wont mess with Sigma, but have you ever used any of Sigma's higher end stuff? I own a 120-300 2.8 and honestly because of that lens for football I hardly touch my 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 anymore.

And yes I do this for a living. Quick grab from Friday's game, shot with the 120-300 2.8

You choose the 120-300 Siggy over the Canon glass? So, the auto-focus is not an issue with your lens shooting sports at all?

[10megapixel]

I think I would definitely need to get my hands on one and use it at a game, but it has me curious now. I see here on POTN they sell used $1300-$1800.

[eigga]

Renting is always an option

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-120-300mm-f2.8-apo-hsm/for-canon

[carshop]

I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?
I am also interested in this lens for hockey, my son's games.
Does the DG make any difference over the non DG?
THanks

[liam5100]

You choose the 120-300 Siggy over the Canon glass? So, the auto-focus is not an issue with your lens shooting sports at all?

Yeah, often for football I do choose it, the versatility with the zoom, to me, is worth the trade off. I dont even carry my traditional 2nd camera with the 70-200 anymore.

Autofocus, honestly I cant tell the difference. I've used the 120-300 for volleyball and football mostly, some soccer. Soccer I tend to use the 400 just for the reach, same with baseball. Although I did shoot quite a bit of high school baseball last year with the sigma.

Color and autofocus I cant tell much difference between the Canon's and the Sigma. The only difference I can really tell is just a touch of sharpness loss, but then again its a zoom. What zoom is ever going to match the 300 or 400 primes?

Keep in mind too, I shoot with the end product in mind. 90% of the time I'm being paid by some magazine or newspaper where the final prints really arent going to be the best quality anyway and any difference in that lost sharpness isnt even noticable to me.

[liam5100]

Dont get me wrong, if canon came out with a zoom up to 300 2.8, I'd drop the sigma for it in a hurry. But that flexability with my shooting style, or lack of talent, whichever way you want to look at it, is helpful to me.

[carshop]

I am also interested in Sigma 120-300 lens for hockey, my son's games.
Does the DG make any difference over the non DG?
THanks

[liam5100]

I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?

Color and contrast... hmmm I'd say its on par with Canon.. yes the canon is a step above. Especially in the durability and weather sealing department. But like I said above, its such a small step in my opinion that the flexability of the zoom for things like football make it worth it.

Being able to stay stationary and adjust the zoom to get the shots as the action moves down field is a big bonus to me. For things like baseball where I'm stuck in a photo well or something its also a bonus. Being able to get full body view of both 1st and 3rd base without switching camera's or lenses is a plus.

EDIT:.. lol that looks like crap.. I better add sRGB conversion to the post list.. there thats better.

Here is a quick baseball grab shot with that lens. Minimal post, +10 clarity, +10 vibrance and unsharp mask. You tell me about color and contrast?

[carshop]

very nice shot

[MT Stringer]

Here's a couple from Friday night with flash on the monopod.
1D MK III, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
I sure like the ability to zoom in our out.
Mike

[carshop]

Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks

[liam5100]

Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks

Mine is the DG version, I really dont know about the difference in performance between that and the older version. I've seen ones like mine go used for around 2k.

[carshop]

Thanks Bill

[liam5100]

No problem.. here is a hockey example for you. Extremely bad conditions, horrible lighting. High ISO. And not the best picture in the world, but just an example of the color contrast of that lens even in bad bad light.

[carshop]

I think I need to get this lens.
Thanks Bill

[bobbyz]

My 120-300mm wasn't comparable to canon 300mm f2.8 IS. There is a reason one goes for $1600 while other is $3500. I am talking used prices. Now some folks are lucky to have a perfect copy but I think they are quite rare. But for the money it is worth it and has a zoom.Some send their body to sigma along with the lens so they can tune the combo.

I sold mine but stupid usps almost lost is transit. For some reason it didn't work well on buyers 1dmk3 so I took it back. With new baby at the time, I couldn't find the time to relist it. If someone wants it, let me know (non DG version) but with new long lens collar like the DG version.

One more thing, in one shot mode, mine was quite sharp while in AI servo it was softer. I will probably try it next game to see how it is working.

Here is shot from yr ago.

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v3/p903551333-5.jpg

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v3/p628015097-5.jpg

Full res

http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v3/p903551333.jpg
http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/v3/p628015097.jpg

[liam5100]

My 120-300mm wasn't comparable to canon 300mm f2.8 IS. There is a reason one goes for $1600 while other is $3500. I am talking used prices. Now some folks are lucky to have a perfect copy but I think they are quite rare. Some send their body to sigma along with the lens so they can tune the combo. But for the money it is worth it and has a zoom.

I sold mine but stupid usps almost lost is transit. For some reason it didn't work well on buyers 1dmk3 so I took it back. With new baby at the time, I couldn't find the time to relist it. If someone wants it, let me know (non DG version) but with new long lens collar like ht eDG version.

Well there is some possible feedback on the NON-DG version. I use my exclusively on my MKIII's.. no issues on either body.

[namasste]

I've shot with both and currently own the Canon 300 and have to say I think its the right call for my style. I agree with Bill that when I am stuck in a photo well, the 300 sometimes limits me and swinging another body around amongst a bunch of shooters isnt always an option or can be done quickly enough to not miss something. Since I shoot more soccer than baseball though, I prefer the prime. I like the IQ better and for me, I shoot differently with a prime since I have to allow the action to present itself more which results in better images for me. That's a style thing really so consider how you shoot then decide. The zoom's flexibility is great but the prime produces better stuff for me.

On another note, I couldn't disagree any more strongly if I tried about the comment of not using a 1.4 with a 70-200. I've made a fair amount of money using that combo before getting the 300 and the images certainly weren't soft (anybody who has ever submitted images to Juli T. @ Maxpreps knows that they'd never see the light of day if they were). I'm not saying its the grail but the 1.4/70-200 combo is not something to dismiss. I usually have the 300 on one body and the 70-200 w tc on another at baseball games and the 300 w/ tc and bare 70-200 for other field sports and it seems to allow for very good flexibility. I've completely lost track of what this post was really about at this point but hopefully something I wrote means something to someone. later.

[mikeassk]

I've shot with both and currently own the Canon 300 and have to say I think its the right call for my style. I agree with Bill that when I am stuck in a photo well, the 300 sometimes limits me and swinging another body around amongst a bunch of shooters isnt always an option or can be done quickly enough to not miss something. Since I shoot more soccer than baseball though, I prefer the prime. I like the IQ better and for me, I shoot differently with a prime since I have to allow the action to present itself more which results in better images for me. That's a style thing really so consider how you shoot then decide. The zoom's flexibility is great but the prime produces better stuff for me.

On another note, I couldn't disagree any more strongly if I tried about the comment of not using a 1.4 with a 70-200. I've made a fair amount of money using that combo before getting the 300 and the images certainly weren't soft (anybody who has ever submitted images to Juli T. @ Maxpreps knows that they'd never see the light of day if they were). I'm not saying its the grail but the 1.4/70-200 combo is not something to dismiss. I usually have the 300 on one body and the 70-200 w tc on another at baseball games and the 300 w/ tc and bare 70-200 for other field sports and it seems to allow for very good flexibility. I've completely lost track of what this post was really about at this point but hopefully something I wrote means something to someone. later.

I am glad Scott brought this up because I was surprised at the comment earlier.

the 1.4 is not that bad at all. You do not lose much sharpness.
I think the added elements make micro focusing a must if you have a capable body.

Especially since with a 300 f4 (sharp lens no doubt) you are stuck at f4.

[Red Dog]

Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks


Not sure there is. Something to do with a coating on the lens. Mines a non DG version and I'm happy with it. Used in all weathers for soccer and motorcycle racing and it does the job. Heres one from last Saturday which was overcast and threatening rain.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/3957168818_f5c2ededb5_b.jpg

[namasste]

Red, that's fantastic!!!!

[Red Dog]

The lens and the camera have to take the credit. I just press the button.