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

I've owned both the Sigma 120-300 and 300 2.8 Canon - w/o a doubt the Canon is better and much sharper/faster - it's sharper than my 400 and takes the 1.4 great. Unfortunately it doesn't get used as much nowadays except in smaller stadiums but won't be getting sold any time soon.

I shoot a lot of high school sports and the Sigma 120-300 works extremely well for me. The Canon 300 f2.8 just wasn't an option at the price they want. At this point even if I had the money I don't think I would want to be locked in to a fixed focal length of 300. I really like the flexibility of the 120-300 zoom. For night time football and soccer I have quit carrying a second body, just the Sigma 120-300 on my 1DMIII on my monopod with 580 flash mounted below the camera. You can see my work at www.jprimages.com

Again, this is what works for me.

JPR Images wrote in post #9047625
You can see my work at www.jprimages.com

Lots of nice work JPR... great exposures, both flashed and non. Definitely not over-flashed. Great focus and true colors too.

Thanks for your comments, Clarence. Currently I am shooting soccer and just now ramping up on basketball. I know there is a lot of discussion about having the "right" gear but sometimes I think it is best to just get out there and use what we have and learn how to use it well.

Nice shots JPR. I put mine for sale but have had second thoughts because of the flexibility of the zoom. I love the sharpness of the 300 2.8. The 120-300 has excellent bokeh but will never be as sharp as a prime. I've been trying the fixed FL of 300 and I can see I'm spoiled by zooms. What I really do not like about this lens is the Sigma finish. Mine is nearly flawless and that is probably not a good thing. I try to baby it because these things get ugly with abuse. The Canons look more like battle scars.

I own the sigma 120-300, 2.8 and used to use it a lot. It is an excellent lens particularly if you throw in the phrase, "for the money." Having said that it is impossible to think that any zoom lens will be as good as a fixed focal length lens. The 300 mm 2.8 is a superior lens in every way. Having said that, the 120-300 isn't bad and I wouldn't feel bad about using it.

I think the "for the money" is key. A used 120-300 is equivalent in price to the 100-400 and 70-200 IS. Flexibility is probably even more descriptive of it. If you don't want to carry two bodies the 120-300 is a great choice.

I'm starting to realize more and more that I've been having difficulty with it (and a couple other zooms) because the 7D's RAW images need more post-processing than the 5D II. I shot some morning soccer on Saturday and found that my keeper rate was much higher this time, after dialing in the 7D a bit more. I'm still having a bit of a tough time with the post-processing of colors, etc though.

I'm still debating sacraficing the flexibility for a fixed 300mm. I don't do this for money so convenience is almost as important at pure IQ.

Not a keeper (no ball, no face, no action,..) but pointing out the bokeh with this lens it does a nicer job than you'd get with other zooms like the 100-400.