"Upgrade" from "L" to Sigma 120-300?

So I have the need for more reach Sadly, the 500mm f/4 is out of my reach for now.

I have the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and LOVE it. Lightweight, fast focusing, great lens! But 400mm is a bit short sometimes...

So I was looking at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC for 420mm and a 2x TC for 600mm....

I know I will lose image quality and AF speed, but the reports I have been reading on POTN say that it still performs VERY well... (for the cost)

I would likely sell my 400mm, and possibly the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS to pay for it (and I don't need to duplicate focal lengths...

Does this sound like an upgrade? I find it odd going from "L" to Sigma - but hey, whatever works!

I had a 120-300 and did not like the results with a 1.4x, worse with a 2x. Look for a used 500/4.5 Canon or Sigma.

Your 400/5.6 is a fine handholdable lens that is light and small to carry around. A 600 lens made with TC won't AF fast, will suffer from blurry image quality, mainly due to AF misses and will be heavy and bulky.

gasrocks wrote in post #3713131
I had a 120-300 and did not like the results with a 1.4x, worse with a 2x. Look for a used 500/4.5 Canon or Sigma.

ooh, I forgot about the 500 f/4.5... Good call!

SaSi wrote in post #3713205
Your 400/5.6 is a fine handholdable lens that is light and small to carry around. A 600 lens made with TC won't AF fast, will suffer from blurry image quality, mainly due to AF misses and will be heavy and bulky.

While I will agree that it isn't as great as just the native glass - there are some pretty impressive motorsport shots with this lens and the 2x TC... Not perfect, but not super blurry.

You just missed out on a Canon 500 f/4.5 on FM and eBay auction. Maybe get in touch with him in case the sale falls through as happens sometimes on eBay.

Canon 500

Also, somebody had a Sigma 500 f/4.5 on FM recently too for a similar price that the Canon went for.

Sigma 500

The Sigma 120-300mm is a lens I'm very keen to learn more about. I've tried ploughing through the reviews and threads posted at this forum and there's been a lot of good comments about it, and others that aren't so good.

There's even been comments elsewhere that it doesn't work well with an the 1Ds Classic, but I'm really not sure if that's true in all circumstances and with all copies. It's a lens I aim to get at the end of the year, but thus far all the reading I've done has left me lukewarm about this lens.

Just need some real convincing, perhaps. Sounds like a fine piece of glass...or I might otherwise land up with a very expensive lens that doesn't do everything it was hyped up to do.

I myself am saving to acquire the sigma 120-300. I'm convinced this is the focal length I need for baseball. I just came back from a baseball tournament and I rented the canon 300 prime f/2.8. It is indeed a beautiful lens, but for me, a non-pro, is surely overkill on the money. Consequently, I am seriously saving for the 120-300. I hope to get it for the next LL season for next spring.

Sure the reviews are mixed, but do you seriously want to spend $4K for the Canon when most of the reviews state the difference in quality between Canon and the sigma is very slim (and the sigma can be acquired for significantly less money)??

You just have to be very careful and extensively test the lens when you get it to make sure you have an acceptable copy. This is why I have changed my mind about acquiring the lens in Dec. I am now going for April, so that I have a longer warranty/return period during the actual time I will be using the lens. For me, there is no purpose to this lens unless I am shooting baseball, which will start up again in April.

fWord wrote in post #3718190
The Sigma 120-300mm is a lens I'm very keen to learn more about. I've tried ploughing through the reviews and threads posted at this forum and there's been a lot of good comments about it, and others that aren't so good.

I see that LensRentals.com has it for rent... plus they have the 1.4x TC (and 2x)... I might just go that route and see how I like it...

pigtailpat wrote in post #3718303
Sure the reviews are mixed, ....

Yea ... well, there's the rub, isn't it ? Have you ever seen "mixed" reviews about the image quality or lens problems with the Canon 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 ? I don't think I ever have ..... and there's a reason for that !!

pigtailpat wrote in post #3718303
... but do you seriously want to spend $4K for the Canon when most of the reviews state the difference in quality between Canon and the sigma is very slim (and the sigma can be acquired for significantly less money)??

OK ... "$4k for the Canon" would only be if you really, really had to have a brand new lens. You can get a good, quality used Canon 300 2.8 for somewhere in the $2400-$2700 range. And, yes, the Sigma can be had for significantly less money (particularly if it's a used lens) .... but, as the old TV ad used to say, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

And as far as the quality between the Canon and the Sigma being very slim - why do you think there are "mixed" reviews about the Sigma and not about the Canon ? Think about it .... it will come to you .....

pigtailpat wrote in post #3718303
You just have to be very careful and extensively test the lens when you get it to make sure you have an acceptable copy.

Again, there's the rub ... What happens if you don't have an "acceptable copy" after you've shot with it ? Take it back to the store ? Ship it off to Sigma for a replacement or to have them fix it ? How much time does that take and how many shooting opportunities do you miss while you're waiting for an "acceptable" lens ? How much time and (lost sales) money does that cost you ? And did you have to "extensively test" the Canon 300 2.8 that you rented ? Didn't think so .....

Everything I've said is based on my own experience with the Sigma 120-300 2.8 - I used to have one ..... The lens I owned was "acceptable" ... But was it in the class of the Canon 400 2.8 which I now own ? Simply put ... NO ! Is it in the class of the Canon 300 2.8 ? Again ... NO !

The Canon lenses will last forever .... and they'll fit on any Canon EOS body that Canon makes from here on out. But if you upgrade your Canon camera body in 5 years, there's a good chance that that Sigma 120-300 2.8 that worked on your old camera won't work on your new camera - it'll need to be re-chipped by Sigma to work with that newer Canon body .....

I realize that everyone will ultimately make the choice that works best for them .... so please forgive me if I've sounded a bit "preachy" (wasn't intended). But I would advise against taking the "short-sighted" view and look more long term. The Canon lenses will hold their value (or depreciate slower!) - the Sigma lens' value will not hold up.

Just my $2 worth ....

there's a used Canon 500 4.5 at b&h right now.

I used to have the 120-300 f2.8 and miss it a lot now that I switched to Canon.

It's a very heavy lens so you must take that into consideration, specially when birding if you are used to the 400 f5.6

It's an awesome lens but needs steady/strong hands, and a powerful camera.(1D)

It produces warmer colors than Canon L's, but is built like a tank and focuses fast and quiet. I used to have both 1.4 and 2x tc and with the 1.4 you could barely tell the diference in IQ.

Good luck

Edwin

From several of the sports photog's including a handfull of very renowned ones that frequent this page, I have heard alot more positives about this lens than negatives.

And the negatives we're mostly focused on the tripod collar.

Yes the image quality is just a smidge less than the "L" prime glass that everyone puts it up against.

But it seems to be the best thing about it has to be the speed with a zoom range. And that's what makes it perfect for sports shooters like myself.

Yea its hefty of a weight but even for a prime 300 aren't you going to be putting in on a Monopod anyway?

All I know is mine is scheduled to show up Wednesday and I will either love it and keep it or turn right around and sell it so I can get some other glass...

I don't think you should hold your breath about me getting rid of it.

Ross

I had the same combo of 120-300 and 1.4 and 2X TCs. With the 1.4 it was pretty nice, but the IQ suffered a little and the focus speed and accuracy suffered a LOT with the 2X. I was still able to get some acceptable shots, but it is definitely a compromise. However, if it's what you can afford, it's what you can afford.
BTW, have you tried using the cheaper Tamron 1.4X TC on your 400? It will slow down the AF considerably, but it will still AF since the TC doesn't report the aperature to the camera.
A few samples:

The Sigma 120-300 with 2X TC:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

You are saying the 400L is a bit too short but you want to get a shorter lens 300mm and make it longer with a TC why not get a none reporting 1.4 TC and use it on your 400L for a 560mm and save your money even better, and you may not need the 2x as RikWriter suggested above, that would be my logic anyway just my opinion

fritz1 wrote in post #3813180
You are saying the 400L is a bit too short but you want to get a shorter lens 300mm and make it longer with a TC why not get a none reporting 1.4 TC and use it on your 400L for a 560mm and save your money even better, and you may not need the 2x as RikWriter suggested above, that would be my logic anyway just my opinion

not only a shorter lens but one that weighs twice as much and doesn't have IS. ugh .

ed rader