300mm 2.8

Don't forget to strip the EXIF info ...

Good job you reminded me

minkynuts wrote in post #10744874
Why would I withhold the fact it a non IS lens

i don't think he's accusing you of holding anything back...you just didn't answer the first time he asked...

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10738653
What Canon lens are we talking about by the way? The old Non IS?
Either way, if you find you have a SIGMA that is that sharp, I'd hold on to it!

DreDaze wrote in post #10744981
i don't think he's accusing you of holding anything back...you just didn't answer the first time he asked...

I thought the same thing.

That's what I thought too.

I just hope the Canon is faster focusing, if after I test it this weekend it it not then I will keep the sigma and sell the Canon meaning all the effort and dreaming of a canon 300 2.8 was a waste of time WHAAAAA

Rob

I rented the 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS) last year. The focus was very fast and the lens was very easy to work with. However, I was not at all impressed with the sharpness of the lens. I don't want to discourage you and really hope your purchase will make you happy, but I do think there's a big difference in sharpness on the IS vs. non-IS.

I own a 300nonIS, a 85L1.2II and 135L2.0, i use them for motor races or dog ahility .. and on my side 300L2.8 is really the sharpest lens I have .. and from very far .. More over AF on a 5DMKII is perfect after +5 micro adjust, ultra quick and accurate better than 85L1.2II and 135L2.0..
So all of your observations surprise me a bit ..

Uhhh, my experience is that there is very little difference in sharpness between the IS and Non-IS version of 300mm f/2.8. They are both killer, sharp lens.

Wow, my experience with the 300/2.8 IS was that it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever worked with. Great AF also.

Sigma sharper? That's blasphemy!!

the thing i'm wondering is if he had just posted the canon shot, and said "i got a new 300mm f2.8"...would everyone have said how sharp that shot was and congratulations...but now because it might not be the sharpest between it and the sigma the responses are now...there must be something wrong with the lens..

they both look sharp to me...

minkynuts wrote in post #10744874
Why would I withhold the fact it a non IS lens. In outside sport the IS to me is a hindrance, due to the slight delay. And as more than one person will tell you, there is not much difference between the IS and non IS quality in daylight. My friend who works for one of the national papers has the IS version, I will get him to lend it to me, I will take 7 photos with my Non IS lens and one with the IS lens using the same camera, focal length, aperture and on a tripod, if you can pick out the IS lens photo 3 times out of ten I will give you $100
if you do not you give me $100, if what you say about the IS lens it should be a cakewalk for you.
Rob

Yes, you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say, but it's my own fault.

We just wanted confirmation of what lens we were discussing.

as for the difference in IQ, I agree, there is little to none between the IS and older version.

I see I worded this poorly above, but my point re knowing which we were talking about had to do with what are the next steps to follow. It seemed far more likely to me that since you are talking about a 10 plus year old lens which has likely been used a lot, there is a stronger possibility that an adjustment needs to be made to get the lens back up to snuff.
In re-reading my post, I certainly made it sound the other way around, I did not post what I take for granted.

rouxeny wrote in post #10746711
Wow, my experience with the 300/2.8 IS was that it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever worked with. Great AF also.

And mine, I tried the 120-300 before I opted for the canon.

Both lenses are actually very good, where the prime excels is in its ability to take 1.4 and 2x TCs far better. If you dont need them, then both are good lenses.