Looking for a Long Lens

Been really looking into investing into a longer lens since I sold my 70-300 L and tired of renting so much. Right now I shoot alot of action sports and really wanting to push my wildlife more. Right now Buget is a bit tight but I can wait a bit. Im shooting on a 1D Mark IV as my main body while I wait to see what the new 1DX will do but I will aslo be using a RED Dragon that a buddy owns to shoot some wildlife stuff. The following lens are what I have been looking at.

Canon 100-400 II - Looks great, I rented it but didnt get to use like I thought I would seems nice but need more time

Canon 300mm F4 IS - Cheap and easy to get, also looks really sharp from a few photos and can take a 1.4 tele when i need to get more reach

Sigma 120-300 Sport - I love the range but I hear alot of bad things about the AF on these lens just arent up to par with what I need.

Sigma 500 4.5 - Im seeing these go for under or right around 2,000 so seems to be a great deal for sure but I dont know much about them

Sigma 150-600 Sport - I rented the tamron and like the range but the images were not that good maybe this is better?

So any help would be great on these lens, photos that you may have will be great as well. Thanks

This to me is a "no brainer".....I am not a Canon shooter. ...but unless your willing to change your price point up to 2.8 glass. ....The lens for almost anyone is the 100-400. It is very sharp and very flexible.....
just my personal opinion.
Kind regards,
joe

Depending on what action sports you are talking about, a zoom adds a lot of versatility if the subject distance changes frequently (like in field sports).

100-400 is an excellent option - sharp, fast focussing, small enough to handhold for lengthy periods. I use my 100-400 for kids soccer, as well as dogs in motion.

I haven't heard that the Sigma 120-300 2.8 has AF problems, but I had heard that it is optically excellent and takes TCs well, but is large and heavy.

If the wildlife usage is likely to predominate, then the 300 f4 IS is said to be excellent (I haven't used this lens), but I'm not sure that it is significantly better than your existing 70-300L (other than being a stop faster, of course).

I shoot more moto based sports as well, here is a shot I just to kinda show it off.

I'm assuming that you rented the 300 2.8 II, otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread.

You should therefore have a pretty good idea about whether a prime will work for you, or whether you would benefit from the versatility of a zoom. You really need to make your own call on that distinction.

There are photo archives for all of these lenses here.

Heya,

I'd go with the 120-300 F2.8 OS Sigma.

Not sure where you heard it had AF issues. It has no more issues than any good Canon has too. It's an excellent lens. Sharp wide open. Fast. Good stabilization. Fast enough AF to bird with, so more than fast enough for a motor bike in the air.

Stay sharp and performs well with good TC's, both 1.4x and 2.0x.

Very best,

if you go to the 120-300mm sample thread, and search for twistys4me posts you can see he uses the 120-300mm for motorcross...i'm not sure if he's using the sport version, or the older OS version...he's also using a nikon body...not sure where you're reading bad things about the AF though.

I have read on other forums of the Sigma having problems, maybe they were taking about the non sport version. But for those who have used it would you say the 100-400 ii rates above the 300mm F4? How close is it to the 500mm F4 lens in terms of detail and AF speed?

I own the EF 300mm f4. Also the Sigma non-s version of the 120-300mm f2.8 and the Sigma 150-600mm Sport version.
There is nothing bad about the Canon 300mm f4. It simply is a great lens and has IS. The Siggy 120-300mm has never has a focus issue with me. It works perfectly on my 1Ds Mk III. It is heavy but the 150-600 Sport defines heavy. I doubt you could hold it and shoot motorcycles. No for long anyway. You will need a good monopod. But it is a very good lens and focuses fast and silently.

The EF 300mm f4 may be the sharpest of these three but if it is it ain't by much. I wouldn't let IQ be the determining factor. Pick the one that fits best.

I had the Canon 300 F4 L IS for quite a while and loved it - but then it suited my needs! The only 2 other lenses I can comment on are the Canon 100-400 Mk2 (had a very brief play and it seemed good) and the Sigma 150-600 S.
I was quite impressed with the Sigma - especially for the price. I thought the AF was a little on the slow side - but very useable - note I don't use IS/OS systems as they impair AF. AF accuracy was simply not an issue in my brief trial and IQ looks very good. One point to note is that the Sigma 150-600 S is quite heavy, that is not an issue for me as I am used to hand holding significantly heavier lenses - but it would benefit from support and will restrict mobility.
I have attached a couple of images from the Sigma attached to my 1DX. They are unedited, hand held and the OS is OFF (best setting for it IMO).

johnf3f wrote in post #17701381
I had the Canon 300 F4 L IS for quite a while and loved it - but then it suited my needs! The only 2 other lenses I can comment on are the Canon 100-400 Mk2 (had a very brief play and it seemed good) and the Sigma 150-600 S.
I was quite impressed with the Sigma - especially for the price. I thought the AF was a little on the slow side - but very useable - note I don't use IS/OS systems as they impair AF. AF accuracy was simply not an issue in my brief trial and IQ looks very good. One point to note is that the Sigma 150-600 S is quite heavy, that is not an issue for me as I am used to hand holding significantly heavier lenses - but it would benefit from support and will restrict mobility.
I have attached a couple of images from the Sigma attached to my 1DX. They are unedited, hand held and the OS is OFF (best setting for it IMO).

Hosted photo: posted by johnf3f in
./showthread.php?p=177​01381&i=i239138044
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by johnf3f in
./showthread.php?p=177​01381&i=i260510903
forum: Canon Lenses

Not if you have to regularly shoot hand held, while panning and at 1/160s its not!

Alan

Not panning admittedly but when I was shooting inside (very poor light) it wasn't too wobbly at 1/160th hand held - please excuse the silly ISO but the light was terrible!
Haven't used the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS for over 20 months on or off tripod so this lens is not too much of a challenge. No I am not a Super Hero!
Just practice.

Looking more now that time has passed I have learned a few more things, would you go for Sigma 120-300 OS if it was under 2 grand? I see a few of them but they are the non sport version and wondering what they are like, some say the sharpness is the same as the sport. Also people say the AF can have problems but to just send in and have Sigma look at the lens and when its fixed the AF is not bad, not 300mm 2.8 good but fine for getting the job done.

I will bet most of these people saying the sigma will have problems are canon fanboys. I never owned the 120-300 but always read it was a fantastic lens. I used to own the 100-400v1 and sold it few years back. Got a sigma 150-600C in the spring and it is my favorite lens. Most of the people who put down the sigma lens are fanboys and never even used one before to make any real judgement. My vote would be the 120-300 or the 150-600. If budget tight get the 150-600C. It's IQ is pretty much equal according to sigma. Mine is very sharp wide open. It just isn't built as tough for nasty weather.