Sports: Canon vs Sigma 300 2.8 vs Sigma 120-300 2.8

I'm going to be shooting a lot of high school sports this fall, with at least four more football games coming my way.

My longest lens for my 20D is a Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?" Noting that affording a Canon 300 2.8 is up there in price. Anyone have experience with the other lenses?

I've never used any of the 300mm lenses but if you do a search here for shots taken by "wazza", he uses a 120-300 to great effect, its a great lens in the right hands (he is currantly using on a MK3 and has recently posted some with 1.4 & 2.0 TC on and they are stunning). Its also quite a bit cheaper than the canon 300 2.8

Mark

benstewart wrote in post #3994515
I'm going to be shooting a lot of high school sports this fall, with at least four more football games coming my way.

My longest lens for my 20D is a Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?" Noting that affording a Canon 300 2.8 is up there in price. Anyone have experience with the other lenses?

The Canon 300 f/2.8 without question. It takes both TC's well with very little degradation in IQ, especially with the 1.4.

benstewart wrote in post #3994515
Canon 70-200 2.8, with a teleextender, it's about 440mm, but as a f/4.

Nope. With a 1.4 TC it's a 98-280 f/4. With a 2x TC it's 140-400 f/5.6!

I ahve a friend that shoots the Sigma 300 2.8 on a Nikon d200 with great results although he complains that sometimes the 300 is just too long when the action is coming towards him. This is why he picked up the 120-300. I don't know if he has used it yet though. I was suprised at how small the Sigma 300 is physically. I hope to get the 120-300 myself sometime as well. The Canon is the best of the 3 but at almost twice the price.

benstewart wrote in post #3994515
Which of the lenses in the title provide the best "bang for your buck?

The canon 300 is the better lens to answer your question. however I think its the wrong question.

for sport a 300 prime is usually used with a second body holding a smaller lens.. usually the 70-200.. the sigma 120-300 is a lot more versatile and although considered the lesser quality lens.. you certainly wouldnt be dissapointed.. I know the differnces but I am sticking with my sigma 120-300

I'd rule out the Sigma prime and decide whether you want versatility, price and a Very high Quality zoom against IS, Prime Quality, and one of the fastest focussing Canon Lenses available.

I wouldn't trade my 120-300 for anything. If i was as good as the lens i'd be a happy bunny

Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #3998438
Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

Ditto

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #3998438
Why rule out the Sigma prime?

Its a damn fine lens in its own right and a stunning bargain compared to the Canon.

I don't believe i said anything derogatory about the Sigma prime, but if i (and note i said i'd rule it out), were in the market for a 300 prime and price wasn't an issue, i'd buy the Canon 300 f2.8 IS. It just can't be beat.

That said, i got the 120-300 because of the zoom and and the excellent quality as it suits my needs better.

There are a great many people who consider the 120-300 to be optically superior to sigma's own 300mm prime.

I had the 120-300 when I started out with sports and got some great results with it - it is a cracking lens. The versatillity of it really does make life a lot easier. As Kipax rightly says, its ideal if you do not have the luxury of 2 bodies.

The 120-300 is slower focussing and a little less contrasty than the Canon (I graduated to that after the Sigma) however its not a deal-breaker - and besides, you can give the contrast an extra bump in Photoshop!!!

Recommending one over the other is hard. The Canon is the better lens. However if you only have 1 camera body and you are looking for something that is versatile and gives very very good results, then the Sigma will not disappoint at all.

Regardless of my current equipment set, I am a college student who considers the Canon 300 2.8 maybe a little too much of an investment.

I've heard the Canon 300 2.8 is the fastest focusing lens out there, so I don't expect anything to live up to it's speed. Thankfully I haven't been spoiled by trying it yet!

Well I HAVE TRIED a 300mmm F2.8 and the sigma, and sadly, the canon is just awesome!
I say 'sadly' because I cant afford it right now!!!

http://fotografiacoppo​la.com

I have and use with great regurality the canon 300 2.8L and it has blow your mind image quality and breathtaking speed auto focus wise. It does not take long to become used to the reach and position yourself properly and if you need to crop you will not be disappointed. My set up has always been 2 40d's the 300 and the 70-200, but recently for night football I have been using the 85 1.2 with a 580ex on it for those times the action runs up on you.

I recently purchased the 120-300 (though I wanted the 300L). What I like is the flexibility of the zoom. What I don't like is it is a zoom. It's unreasonable to think it will be as sharp as a 300 2.8 wide open. However, it does a very fine job in the right hands. Reality is though, a used 300 is more than twice the price of a 120-300. For many thats hard to swallow.