Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 or Sigma 300mm 2.8 which one to buy?

Hello Everyone Merry Xmas............

Canon 20D
Canon 40D
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8
Canon 1D Mark III (end of Feb)


Okay here we go; this will be long so I can provide everyone with as much info as possible. But basically I am trying to choose between the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and the Sigma 300mm 2.8. (Not interested in the

Canon lenses yet $$$)

About two years ago I bought my first EOS camera and that was the Canon 20D. I was a novice and interested in shooting primarily sport. I asked for advice from the wonderful people on here in regards to a

good fast lense without breaking the bank. Nearly everybody said to get the Sigma 70-200mm, which I did and it has served me extremely well and I thank you all.

I have been very lucky in regards to access to some major sporting events, festivals and concerts. This will only increase in the future. I must point out I consider myself to be still a novice and as such I am not at the stage where I am making vast amounts of money and this is fine by me at the moment. I still have a day job and look at my photography as an expensive hobby. I would love to become a pro but that’s a long way off and if it doesn't happen it will be no big deal because I have been introduced to this wonderful science called "PHOTOGRAPHY" which will be with me until the day I die!

I now realise the severe limitations I face in shooting football games with just this lense. It has been frustrating at times but I knew sooner or later I would be getting a longer lense. IT IS NOW LATER

So I have been looking very closely at the Sigma 120-300mm and until last night had my mind made up. Then I stumbled across this quote (it came from a head to head review between both lenses)

"In many ways, the Sigma zoom is a super-sized 70-200mm f/2.8. Let's be honest: with telephoto zooms, no one's buying for the wide end; it's the reach you're paying for. If you've been thinking about a 70-200mm f/2.8 but haven't yet made the plunge, and pondered if maybe you'd like even more reach than 200mm for those birds in the backyard or the outfielders on the local baseball diamond, you should give serious consideration to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.

If you've got a quality 70-200mm f/2.8 in your bag, you'd be duplicating a good bit at the wide end with the Sigma zoom. Go for the prime. It's a little sharper and a little faster in AF in both bright and dim conditions, and the difference between 200mm and 300mm, while not negligible, isn't dramatic."

I now am a little confused regarding what to choose. Also to balance the argument here is another quote:

"Before buying this lens I was shooting two bodies to cover the focal range of the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I had a 300/2.8 on one body and a 70-200/2.8 on the other for a total of around 20 lbs. When shooting a tournament for 12 hours a day you quickly appreciate the weight savings. The biggest bonus is not giving up any image quality over the 300/2.8 making it the most productive lens I have ever owned."

As I said above a primarily shoot sport, but I do shoot a few festivals which include bands, DJ's and drag queens. I found the sigma 70-200mm to be quite useful for me at when I am not using the Canon 24-70mm at these festival events. As for the sport side, I am going to start using to cameras just like the pros.

So I would like a few opinions on which lense I should get and would really like all your insights as well

Thank you ever so much for your time and for all the wonderful posts on here as I have learnt some much from all you guys over the past two years.

If you are shooting "large field sports" football, baseball, soccer, you will come to love the 300/2.8. I started doing exactly what your last quote said - 70-200 on one body and the 300 on the other. but found I didn't use the 70-200 that often and got beter composing shots with the 300/2.8. finally , you will get the urge to go longer and pick up a 1.4 or 2.0X converter and be really glad you purchased the 300/2.8
FWIW
Steve

Check out the MTF info on each lens at Sigmas web page
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/lenses/lenses_all.​asp

There is an argument that the centre sharpness of the zoom exceeds that of the prime

Redfish wrote in post #4524169
If you are shooting "large field sports" football, baseball, soccer, you will come to love the 300/2.8. I started doing exactly what your last quote said - 70-200 on one body and the 300 on the other. but found I didn't use the 70-200 that often and got beter composing shots with the 300/2.8. finally , you will get the urge to go longer and pick up a 1.4 or 2.0X converter and be really glad you purchased the 300/2.8
FWIW
Steve

thanks...I forgot to mention that I have a sigma 1.4 extender and will be getting 2x extender next week.

im giving serious consideration to the 300/2.8

Aust2000 wrote in post #4524293
Check out the MTF info on each lens at Sigmas web page
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/lenses/lenses_all.​asp

There is an argument that the centre sharpness of the zoom exceeds that of the prime

thank you

Wanted to subscribe to this, i am facing the same decision as well.

I don't know... you'll find tons of owners of the 120-300 zoom on here, and next to no owners of the 300 prime. You can draw your own conclusions.

I've already replied to your same post in that "other" forum .... so I won't repeat myself here ....

But Mark makes a very good point .... (he usually does .... !)

Here's a quote from an older review, comparing the two lenses:

The entire review can be read here:

http://www.shutterbug.​net/test_reports/0204s​b_sigma/

I have a 70-200 f/2.8L, a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and a Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS, and have felt no need to get ANY 300 f/2.8 prime - that's how good the Sigma is. Is it equal to the Canon 300 prime? No, but it's awful good, and being a zoom is extremely handy.

Oh my word, Nearly every bit of you post (OP) is reading about me! Ive not long started and going/went through exactly the same process as you, Difference is I shoot Nikon (sowwy) Only 2 days ago I plumped for the 120-300 zoom, I am so impressed, I was tied between that and the Prime and posted as such on the nikon forum for advice, I also sought advice off members from here whos work I rate and respect alot. My choice was the zoom version and it is soooooo impressive, So much so without even holding the prime I feel Ive made the right decision, If the prime is better its going to be mind blowing, Im on the verge of selling my 70-200 now as it just wont be used I feel, A cracking lens in its own right but worlds apart to the 120-300.

The 120-300 is a great lens, I wish Canon made one.
I'm not real thrilled with the focus speed and quality of the image when using the Canon 1.4x on it though.

I'm facing the exact same decision as well, and with Football work likely to come up in new year, I am tempted to go for the 300mm f2.8 and get a 70-200mm 2.8 zoom on second body possibly a canon 20d. Any opinions on this combination (not trying to steal thread, lol!)The zoom is needed as I do club photography work and a lot of photos that are used are celebrations, so thats the reasoning behind needing the zoom.
I must say I have heard many positive reviews about the 300mm.

I prefer the 120-300 so I only use one body at football. I do have a second body but it's easier to use the one (obviously)...

A 300 prime is better quality from what I am told.. but the versatility of a zoom like this wins out over the difference in quality that isn't going to be that much.

My main body has 120-300 and second body has 24-70 for MOTM and sponsor presentations and ground pics etc I have the sigma 1.4 TC for cricket season

It is slower with the 1.4 tc, particularly on non-1D based bodies. On 1D's, it slows some but not enough for you to not be able to get the shots you need. On a xxD, yeah, it gets painful in lower light situations. Not a recommended combo for low light shots. On your future Mk III, it will be a super companion.

Hi

I use the 300 2.8 with and without a 1.4 tcon and can't fault the setup.I also use a camera setup with the 300 on one body and something shorter on the other.If I only had one body I would go for the 120-300 but having 2 bodies means that I can have the best of both.I've also read somewher that the 120-300 is actually a bit shorter than 300 at the long end.I can't remember the exact figures but approx 280 rings a bell.
A bit off topic but I had the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 300 for a while.When I compared the pictures from the 2 I got shot of the 100-400.I didn't want to use it after seing the difference in the quality of the images.
1000's of pictures on my site taken with the 300 for anyone interested.

Cheers
Gary