Would you trade these lenses?

Hopefully not your typical, which lens question here. I've been shooting pro, NCAA, and prep sports for years and have owned some of the finest glass Canon has to offer. I've shot in huge venues and had access to places I'd only dreamed of when I first started. During that time, I've barely earned enough to pay for my gear and expenses and have spent countless hours traveling, editing, fighting crowds, scrambling for deadlines, and generally realizing that sports photography is not the glamorous (or financially lucrative) thing I thought it was when I first got started. That gets me to today. I've been paring down my gear pretty systematically and have gotten it down (lenses and bodies that is) to a 1DMkIII, 24-105, 70-200, and a 1.4x tc. Even sold the 300 this year! Truth be told, I walked away from much of the work I did over the last few years as it simply stopped making sense to me. Most of my sports work is now centered on covering the teams my kids play for. I sell some images here and there to parents but don't really go out of my way to do so.

Stay with me, I promise there's a question in here.... so all that said, I am considering trading my 70-200 for a Sigma 120-300 leaving me with the Siggy and a 24-105. Seems like an easy decision but I'm concerned that the Sigma is just going to sit there when I am not shooting my kids sports whereas the 70-200 does have a more versatile size for other shooting. Has anyone else found themselves in this type of situation? I'd love to hear some opinions. If I were to do this, is there another lens you'd add to the mix for non-sports type shooting or just use the 24-105 for everything? My style is more of a telephoto/tight style so while a wide angle sounds great, I just don't find myself shooting wide very often. Also to note, I do shoot some concert work from time to time but not enough to really have dedicated lens just for that.

So...what would you do?

I'd keep what you have unless your shooting Night sports requiring reach.

I've never had the opportunity to shoot at the venues that you have, but I've owned the Sigma 120-300 & it's an absolute beast of a lens to carry around and it doesn't work great with a TC, so it wouldn't even be very practical for wildlife. I'm pretty sure that you would only use it to shoot sports & It's not really long enough for wildlife. I now own a 300L 2.8 IS and the Canon 300 is much easier to carry around than the Sigma 120-300. It's more compact & it balances much better on my monopod IMHO, but I primarily only use it for sports. If I didn't shoot sports, I would much rather use my 70-200 w/ a TC when I need more reach, plus the 70-200 is just such a great lens. If I had to choose between the Sigma 120-300 & the Canon 70-200, I would definitely go with the Canon & just live with less reach or the same reach with a narrower aperture & a TC.

namasste wrote in post #13269427
.... so all that said, I am considering trading my 70-200 for a Sigma 120-300

I've been tempted by that lens for years.

Have you owned Sigma in the past?

The range and prices are so attractive, and if you search hard enough, you can find some outstanding shots made by someone with the right combination of talent (could make any lens look good) and a good copy.

Summary of Sigma stereotypes...

- you get what you pay for

- the benefit of cost savings dissipates quicker than the feeling of comromise with lower performance/quality/bu​ild

- resale value can vary widely, but is generally less than OEM Canon, especially L

- the best-performing copies aren't usually the ones that quickly get flipped for resale

- after a few decades, you think they'd come up with a finish that doesn't peel and flake

- if you use extenders, make sure you assess performance with TCs

- a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp until f/4 or higher might not be what you need

Thanks for the candid responses. Honestly not what I thought I'd hear. I've used the sigma rather extensively but have not owned it. Clarence, I agree that I have seen some phenomenal stuff shot with it but my experience with IQ wise at least, was meh.

As I mentioned above, the one really nice thing with the 70-200 is it's versatility as a sports lens, portrait lens, compressed landscape lens, and with tubes, even some macro. The same can't really be said about the Sigma which where my dilemma came into play.

Again, thanks. Love to hear more opinions if anyone else has thoughts but this is really helpful so far.

One other option, what about a 300 f4 and maybe throw a fast prime in like a 135 or 100 f2?

Scott, you know best what you will be photographing if it isn't sports. As I mentioned to you, I just bought the new Sigma 120-300 OS. It is a beast to carry around. I did shot a soccer game the other day hand held. It wasn't that bad but I was feeling tried by the end of the game. I sold my 300 f4 to fund the Sigma. I loved the the prime and I did use it for more than sports, ie. the zoo. You've put out some excellent pictures with the 70-200 and 1.4x combo that it seems to work for you. If you aren't going to be doing it as you did in the past,well I think you know the answer.

Clarence,
I think you made some valid points about the old Sigma but the new one has a great finish (that shouldn't flake) and is very sharp wide open. Will it hold the value, probably not like the Canon but the Canon is over twice the price. As they say, "value is in the eyes of the holder". Would I like the Canon, yes! Can I afford the Canon, No!

Scott, I have to say that it saddens me that you're giving up your sport shooting. I went to your site and I think your shots are outstanding. Your non-sports shots may be even more outstanding. It seems you have that artistic "eye" that I seem to lack. By the way, really like the background music as well.

jdnan wrote in post #13272753
Scott, I have to say that it saddens me that you're giving up your sport shooting. I went to your site and I think your shots are outstanding. Your non-sports shots may be even more outstanding. It seems you have that artistic "eye" that I seem to lack. By the way, really like the background music as well.

wow, I am really flattered by that. thanks very much for such kind comments. I'll still shoot some youth sports (my kids) but the rest of it will probably be left for someone else to take over. the non-sports stuff is definitely where I'd like to improve and spend more time. funny you mention the creative piece since I feel like that's the area I am most lacking in.

FWIW, I did list the 70-200 for sale here and on FM. Plan is to pick up a 300 f4 for my kids sports and another 135.

I know where you coming from Scott, as you know after alot of thought I have decided to hang it up too.

Sledhed wrote in post #13273405
I know where you coming from Scott, as you know after alot of thought I have decided to hang it up too.

yeah, I let Alyson know this morning. Everything has its season Chris, we both understand that. Not a bad thing, in fact, a very good thing. Let's both make the most of the opportunity my man!!

I can't speak on any Sigma lenses, but the 70-200 is a very sweet and versatile lens. I sold the 50D and 70-200 f4 to subsidize the purchase of mine and I just love the quality of the images. Scott and Sledhed, I wish you greatness in your endeavors. I understand the need to change and that is why I am trying different areas of photography to keep things fresh and not get to bored in one area. I hope you guys still drop in every then and again to answer some of our posts. Oh I forgot, personally, I'd keep that 70-200.

Currently, I am where you guys were 7-8 years ago, starting into sports photography. I know I won't get rich off it, but I just enjoy being out there and shooting, just as I enjoy nature photography (my true passion). I am also working towards more portraiture work, too.

Al

Sledhead & Namasste,
What pushed you guys over the edge?
Dave

Chris jumped and grabbed my shirt as he flew over the edge!

Honestly Dave, its not any one thing. I guess for me, I just realized how much time and money I have invested in something that provides such high levels of frustration and so little financial gain. In the end, I'd rather put the money into less expensive gear and put the savings into something that gives me more personal satisfaction (bike racing in my case). As for the time, that's easy, I spend it with my wife and kids instead of some stranger on the touch line.

I still plan on shooting some sport but it will mostly be for my kids teams just for fun. If I get approached to shoot a game otherwise, I'll only do it if I get paid up front, the pay is good, and it fits with my family schedule. I LOVE the shooting aspect of sports photography, really love it. Its all of the other nonsense that I can do without. Whether its is an editor with unreasonable expectations, a team that's slow to pay, parents that promise but don't buy, or some knucklehead in the parking lot that doesn't care about your credential and parking pass and makes you park 4 miles away to a game you are already running late to since the client called you last minute, I'll let someone else enjoy that stuff.

I'll still be around to offer help and even post some shots now and then (can't get rid of me that easy) but I'm simply not going to retain or go after some of the higher level gigs that I have done in the past. Who knows, maybe I'll even try shooting some things that I have never done before (recently even did and engagement shoot which was fun...doubt I'll seek these out but it was fun all the same.

Its all good as far as I'm concerned and I wont' speak for Chris, but I know where he's coming from and think he's making a great call as well.