Canon 300 F4 IS vs Canon 400 F5.6 vs Sigma 300 F2.8 ?

Hello everyone first time post here and am glad to join the family to talk about photography!
Struggling on which to choose and hope someone can shed some light or suggestions.
Given they are at a similar price range (with Sigma 300/2.8 being 2nd hand on evil bay), which lens should I get?

I am currently using a Canon 70D APSC Camera and I shoot mostly birds, a little wildlife, and a little sports (my son in soccer matches).
I am currently using a Canon 200mm F2.8 II which I love a lot but find it lacking in reach when shooting birds and wildlife.

I was thinking the Canon 300/4 IS would be the best choice but then I ran into the Sigma 300/2.8 and 120-300 non-OS on evil bay that sells around the same price as the 300/4 IS and was wondering a 300/2.8 is that much better than a 300/4 or 400/5.6.

Any thoughts?

Do you have any TC's? Both the 200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 take teleconverters well- both the 1.4 and 2.0 varieties.

Simply adding the TC's to your bag nets you a 280mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 without buying additional lenses.

For the lenses you are looking at, I'd go with the versatility of the Sigma zoom. If you feel like you need IS, either save up for the more expensive version, or go with the 300mm f/4 IS. The 300mm plays well with the 1.4 TC as well, giving you a 420mm f/5.6.

Heya,

If you're considering the 300 F4L, then maybe just consider a simple 1.4x TC with your 70-200 II. Same thing basically. It will still be decently sharp & fast for what you do.

If you want to dedicate to wildlife/birds, stop looking at 300mm and start looking at 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, or consider 300mm with TC options to get there.

300 F4 is good for BIF at close distance. But you'll find yourself reach limited for anything farther than 15 yards unless it's a massive bird like a heron or pelican. You will not be getting crisp clean high detail shots of things soaring 200 feet away with this.

A 120-300 F2.8 non-OS Sigma, it's ok, but I wouldn't get it. Not for that cost.

If you want to be more serious, look for a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS non-Sport. $2k~2.5k That is worth it. That will give you tons of options for sports, wildlife, birds. This is an end-game lens easily. 300 F2.8, 420 F4, 600 F5.6, etc, with TC's. It works great with TC's. Fast and sharp. Only hurts to buy once!

You can look at a Canon 300 F2.8 non-IS. $2k often. Discontinued and not supported, but truly legendary glass. Takes TC's well. So you have 300 F2.8, 420 F4 and 600 F5.6. Great for sports, wildlife and birds. Just remember, no stabilization, no Canon support. But it's worth it, it's such good glass. Just depends how paranoid you are.

Otherwise, in the $1k area, look at Sigma's 150-600 C. Look at Canon's 100-400L (mkI used). Look at the 400 F5.6 prime (Birds in Flight).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17795042
Heya,
Otherwise, in the $1k area, look at Sigma's 150-600 C. Look at Canon's 100-400L (mkI used). Look at the 400 F5.6 prime (Birds in Flight).

Very best,

If I were looking at these two choices, in a focal length limited situation I would pick the Sigma 150-600 C over the 100-400 Mk I any day. I've not had the the Sigma long, but it is truly the equal of the 100-400's that I have rented when shot at the same focal length. It's great advantage is the extra 200mm of focal length on the long end. Having 600mm available when you need it is priceless. I used to regularly rent the 100-400, but ended up choosing the 150-600 over it, when I could have had either when I eventually bought. I recommend the Sigma over the Tamron at this price point simply because the Sigma IMO offers a far more reliable panning mode for slow shutter speeds. At least the Tamron VC isn't still broken in panning mode though. Also the USB dock offers the option of MFAing the lens at 16 distance/zoom combinations if you need it, as well as customising the AF/OS system settings.

Alan

With what you're looking at, I would invest in converters, shoot with those on your 200 and see what lengths work for you, then decide. The converters will work with the other primes you picked also so no money wasted.

the two canon lenses should be under $1,000 while i imagine the sigma would be quite a bit more...so what's your total budget? if the 200mm f2.8 is long enough for you to use in sports, you can look at something else for the birds and wildlife...i'd start at 400mm, and wouldn't look at anything below that, unless your budget is very limited

Are you saying you found a SIGMA 300mm f/2.8 EX HSM prime for the same price as a new EF 400mm f/5.6?

I'd grab that lens in a heartbeat!

Do be absolutely sure it is has the letters "EX" and "HSM" in the name. If it's the much older APO version without all those other alphabet soup letters, it is slow AF and often will not even work properly on a modern Canon DLSR.

All that said, for birding 400mm plus as others mentions. The 300mm f/2.8 will work very well with a 1.4x, giving you the option of a very useable 420mm f/4! Also, that f/2.8 prime will be the best option for fast sports.

If I were shopping a long lens right now, it would be the Sigma 120-300 EX OS. The original EX was optically and focus speed challenged (but still very good) compared to the OS version. The new OS Sport model is better, but lists at $3,500. Too much for me.

Thanks for all the suggestions! I haven't thought about tele extenders and have never owned one but that seems to be the most economical choice.
It makes sense that it won't be as good as the actual 300mm and 400mm prime but you get what you paid for I guess. The only thing I'm worried about is whether the combo has the resolving power to out resolve the 20MP APSC sensor which is quite demanding.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17795514
Are you saying you found a SIGMA 300mm f/2.8 EX HSM prime for the same price as a new EF 400mm f/5.6?

I'd grab that lens in a heartbeat!

Do be absolutely sure it is has the letters "EX" and "HSM" in the name. If it's the much older APO version without all those other alphabet soup letters, it is slow AF and often will not even work properly on a modern Canon DLSR.

All that said, for birding 400mm plus as others mentions. The 300mm f/2.8 will work very well with a 1.4x, giving you the option of a very useable 420mm f/4! Also, that f/2.8 prime will be the best option for fast sports.

Hi CyberDyne, yes there's a Sigma 300/2.8 EX DG HSM lens selling at a local photography trading website for roughly around USD 1,300. It's slightly more expensive than the 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 but still within my budget. It also comes with lens coat and three drop-in filters. Is it a good buy?

I am not sure about prices I've just seen this lens for sale on eBay around this price or even slightly cheaper (but for Nikon mount) so I thought it's not particularly a good deal:
http://www.ebay.com …901440:g:kcAAAO​SwLzdWTd1-
http://www.ebay.com …0c1f2a:g:rEMAAO​Swo0JWKkQK

Plus there's not a lot of reviews or tests about this lens so I have no idea if I should go for it. It's been over a week and the lens is still available I guess people prefer the 120-300 OS non-sport more since it's only $300-400 more? Just my guess. But yeah Cyber, a 300 /2.8 is many photographers' dream to have I think I'll have to take serious consideration between the extender route or just go with the big boy 300/2.8

at that price, i'd probably go for the sigma...you should be able to re-sell it for the same price if it doesn't work out for you...if it's been sitting for a week or two you can offer a little less too...this way you can have a bit of money to spend on a 2X TC

secant wrote in post #17795763
...

Hi CyberDyne, yes there's a Sigma 300/2.8 EX DG HSM lens selling at a local photography trading website for roughly around USD 1,300. It's slightly more expensive than the 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 but still within my budget. It also comes with lens coat and three drop-in filters. Is it a good buy?

Phenomenal! I would buy it on principle If I found that.

The 2X may be tough to get good results with, but a 1,4X T-Con with that fast prime will be very good indeed!