Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Aug 2013 (Friday) 11:24
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Canon 300 2.8 IS or Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport"
Canon 300 2.8 IS
29
56.9%
Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport
22
43.1%

51 voters, 51 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Field sports: Canon 300 2.8 IS vs Sigma 120-300 OS Sport

 
iGotter
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
     
Aug 30, 2013 11:24 |  #1

Looking to spend some extra cash for a field sports lens for the fall. Unfortunately the 400 2.8 is outside of my price range. Not looking to spend anything more than 4k at this point.

Right now I am shooting with:
7D
17-55 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8 IS II
85 1.8

At some point, I will probably be adding a second body, most likely a 5D Mark III since that will help me out quite a bit for basketball come winter time. But I don't think I can swing spending the money for the lens AND the body right now.

So for now, I am just looking to pick up a field sports lens for use with my 7D.

I am conflicted between the legendary Canon 300 2.8 IS and the newly released Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS Sport.

Since I will most likely only have one body for this fall, I'm leaning more towards the Sigma for it's zoom range, but I haven't seen too many sample sports images from that lens or even heard much about it from sports shooters. The slower AF from the Sigma worries me a little bit. IQ I'm also not too sure on. Plus it weighs significantly more as well.

I'm not necessarily looking for a concrete answer, but I would love if some who are more experienced with these lenses would offer their thoughts about this decision.


Gear List: Canon 1D Mark IV, 7D, 300mm 2.8 IS I, 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, 17-55mm 2.8 IS, Rokinon 14mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tmalone893
Goldmember
Avatar
2,018 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 716
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Aug 30, 2013 14:03 |  #2

I use thec120-300 OS with a 5D3, AF IS just fine. I love the zoom, it makes it very versatile for all sports. You can go wrong with either one. I just bought a 400 and while I love it also, there are many times I wished I had the zoom.


Name: Theron
MaxPreps Profile (external link)
My Gear

flickr (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/theronmalone/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 30, 2013 18:01 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

I'd get the 300. You already have the 70-200 and are thinking of getting another camera. You can have the 300 on your 7d for the reach and the 70-200 on your 5d3 for the closer action.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rxjohn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,072 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Northern Cal
     
Aug 30, 2013 18:03 as a reply to  @ tmalone893's post |  #4

I have used both side by side for kids' soccer.

Actually I used 120-300mm non-OS lens.

No doubt 300m 2.8 was sharper and captured better pictures. But 120-300mm was much more versatile and I didn't have to move around too much.

That being said, I've never tried 120-300mm OS or OS - S.

If OS version can rival the IQ of Canon, I'd opt for the zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Humble ­ Photographer
Member
87 posts
Joined Aug 2013
     
Aug 30, 2013 18:37 |  #5

Sigma does not even come close.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Aug 30, 2013 18:56 |  #6

Humble Photographer wrote in post #16254662 (external link)
Sigma does not even come close.

the OP is talking about the new OS S version not the inferior older non OS version
According to some reviews the new OS S is almost as good as the 300L IS II and is comparable to the 300L IS I

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0 (external link)


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iGotter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
     
Aug 30, 2013 19:10 as a reply to  @ FuturamaJSP's post |  #7

By looking at those charts, it appears as if the 120-300 needs to be stopped down to about f/4 before reaching the sharpness of the 300 at 2.8. For those who have used both lenses, is this an accurate rating do you think?

Normally I am not a pixel peeper (I do use the 7D, afterall). But in this case, it is my intention to eventually get images good enough to be published by major magazines and news outlets. Perhaps the 300 2.8 would be the way to go with that in mind?

I'm sure either way I go, I will be very happy. But I am very torn making my first step into the super-tele range.


Gear List: Canon 1D Mark IV, 7D, 300mm 2.8 IS I, 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, 17-55mm 2.8 IS, Rokinon 14mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
postcardcv
Senior Member
252 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 16
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 31, 2013 02:43 |  #8

I have used the first version of the 120-300 OS and was very impressed with it, AF was fast and accurate and I couldn't complain about the level of sharpness when shooting wide open. It is a huge step up on the non-OS version of the lens that I had before and from what I have read the newer one is even better. In terms of AF it was not quite as quick as the Canon (comparing it to a 300 f2.8 IS mkI) but as a naked lens was comparable in sharpness in real world shooting. When used with a 1.4x tc the Canon did have a slight edge and the Sigma needed to be closed down by a stop to give the same results (though it was still very usable wide open). I used mine for wildlife and some sports so found that the relative lack of reach of the Sigma was an issue (it seems to be closer to being 260-270mm when shooing at close distances), so I ended up 'lending' it to a friend. For my uses the Canon is a better choice, however for sports the versatility of the zoom is very helpful.


www.blueskybirds.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,917 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Aug 31, 2013 07:32 as a reply to  @ postcardcv's post |  #9

No Doubt. The canon 300 is a better lens. It has quicker focus, its sharper,plus its white:lol: and comes with a really Bitchen case.

BUT

I purchased the Sigma 120-300. After testing I decided that the sigma was Good enough for image quality and the versatility of the zoom put it about canon for my needs.

Canon is a 10 with Image quality.
Sigma is a 9

Canon is a 10 in the focus department
Sigma is an 8

Canon is $7500.00. Sigma is $2900.00 and it zooms. For me, it was a no brainer. But the canon is better


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 31, 2013 07:39 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

umphotography wrote in post #16255779 (external link)
No Doubt. The canon 300 is a better lens. It has quicker focus, its sharper,plus its white:lol: and comes with a really Bitchen case.

BUT

I purchased the Sigma 120-300. After testing I decided that the sigma was Good enough for image quality and the versatility of the zoom put it about canon for my needs.

Canon is a 10 with Image quality.
Sigma is a 9

Canon is a 10 in the focus department
Sigma is an 8

Canon is $7500.00. Sigma is $2900.00 and it zooms. For me, it was a no brainer. But the canon is better

I think the OP is only considering the original version of the 300 which can be found for around $3500.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iGotter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
     
Aug 31, 2013 08:39 |  #11

Hogloff wrote in post #16255807 (external link)
I think the OP is only considering the original version of the 300 which can be found for around $3500.

That is correct, the original 300 2.8 IS.


Gear List: Canon 1D Mark IV, 7D, 300mm 2.8 IS I, 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, 17-55mm 2.8 IS, Rokinon 14mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lovemyram4x4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Temecula
     
Aug 31, 2013 12:24 |  #12

Well there's a reason why I'll currently only buy Canon lenses that will be used for things that move fast and it's for the faster more consistent AF(yes Canon does have some lenses that isn't better). Not that the AF isn't good on many of the other 3rd party lenses(the 120-300 is actually quick good), but when I'm shooting things that I can't just take another shot(which is usually the case with any of my fast moving subjects) I want to have the chance of it being OOF as low as possible.

With that said, if I only had one body and shooting something that might need shorter focal length at any given time(like field sports) I'd pick the 120-300. With 2 bodies I'd take the big white prime since it does every just a little bit better except zooming(the second body can cover that).

Both lenses are one of the best in both company's line ups so you can't go wrong with either. Since at this time you only have the one body the question is will the prime's slight edge in AF/IQ/etc outweigh being able to zoom out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 31, 2013 12:41 |  #13

umphotography wrote in post #16255779 (external link)
Canon is $7500.00. Sigma is $2900.00 and it zooms. For me, it was a no brainer. But the canon is better

where'd you get the sigma for $2900...it's $3,600 everywhere

the sigma also has the ability to change how fast it Auto-focuses...and customize other aspects to your shooting

if you were to get the sigma, would you sell the 70-200mm f2.8 IS?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iGotter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
54 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
     
Aug 31, 2013 14:03 |  #14

DreDaze wrote in post #16256403 (external link)
where'd you get the sigma for $2900...it's $3,600 everywhere

the sigma also has the ability to change how fast it Auto-focuses...and customize other aspects to your shooting

if you were to get the sigma, would you sell the 70-200mm f2.8 IS?

Absolutely not. The 70-200 will never leave my bag.


Gear List: Canon 1D Mark IV, 7D, 300mm 2.8 IS I, 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, 17-55mm 2.8 IS, Rokinon 14mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Aug 31, 2013 15:13 |  #15

iGotter wrote in post #16256548 (external link)
Absolutely not. The 70-200 will never leave my bag.

if that's the case, i don't see the sigma making much sense..


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,495 views & 0 likes for this thread
Field sports: Canon 300 2.8 IS vs Sigma 120-300 OS Sport
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ckort66
827 guests, 317 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.