Which is the best choice---300mm

I want to get a 300mm for racing. I am thinking the EF 300 f/2.8, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 or the 120-300 f/2.8. I am pretty positive that I will be using atleast a 1.4 converter at times and even a 2x at others. I want to go with a 300 since I really can't afford a longer one at the moment unless you can recommend a real good choice in 500mm.

I am thinking that IS will not be a huge factor for racing pics as I will be doing panning shots and using a monopod. I am just looking for the lens that will give me great IQ including when using 2x converter, but not make me completely broke.

I have a 100-400 at the moment and would either keep it or replace it with a 70-200 to use on my second body.

EF 300/2.8 L IS without a doubt.

300 f2.8 + 2x + 1.4x. The real problem is camera shake

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm gonna play devils advocate and say the 120-300 f2.8 EX DG not only for the zoom but also the stellar IQ. The 300 2.8 is a STELLAR lens but when you price it out the Sigma 120-300 swoops in there and takes the light (i just got mine for about $1800 CDN). I'll be using mine for motorsports events and it's my replacement for the 100-400 I curently own which is a fantastic lens but I am going to be shooting rally's this year and dense forest + 5.6 doesn't work too well.

300 f2.8. Non IS works as long as you use a good monopod tho'

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Really depends what your budget is because your comparing a 2 £1500/1600 (sigma) lenses with a £2900 (canon) lens, and 2 primes against a zoom. The canon 300mm f2.8 (cheaper non IS only in 2nd hand market in UK) or IS version are one of the best out there and works well with 1.4x and 2x TC. As for the other 2, I would probably go for the 120-300mm of over the sigma prime and again this is a stella lens. I would love the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (or really a 100-400mm f4, unfortunately it doesn't exist) because it a versitile lens, but it's unusable in the UK (for what I want to use it for) because its performance falls away considerably in poor light conditions. If you have the money get the canon 300mm, if your budget doesn't reach that far get the sigma 120-300mm.

Peter

I highly recommend the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 for racing. I had one and it was great

The budget thing is what I trying to figure out. Do I have a budget big enough to get the 300 L, I could. Do I need to have that budget or could I go cheaper and still retain excellent IQ even with converters.......that is more of my question I guess.

Canon 300 2.8L

if you want the best Canon if you want second best Sigma.
Rob.

Strick wrote in post #4781446
The budget thing is what I trying to figure out. Do I have a budget big enough to get the 300 L, I could. Do I need to have that budget or could I go cheaper and still retain excellent IQ even with converters.......that is more of my question I guess.

The canon 300mm f2.8 is a stonking lens, I've been lusting after one since I saw the images it produced on a dark, overcast, wet day in Wales photographing aircraft practising lowflying, but it's £2900 in the UK, which is a significant amount of money for me, especially as I only do this photography lark for fun.

You have to ask yourself do I need the versitility of a zoom (which works well with TC's), or will I mainly be using it at 300mm. There is also a significant difference in price between the sigma 120-300mm and the canon 300mm.

Peter

GyRob wrote in post #4781480
if you want the best Canon if you want second best Sigma.
Rob.

I think that's a bit of a naive statement to be honest, go take a look at some of the shots that Cadwell or JuZ have posted with the 120-300 Sigma or some of the other motorsports shots with Sigma lenses. White's not always the best

For the money and versitility the sigma is unbeatably good value and I have to agree with the last post, Glen (Cadwell) loves this lens and a few of his friends who's bank balances have been lightened because of this lens......you could also check out Wazza, who own's a copy.

Its whether you can justify an extra £1300 (uk prices) for something with similar IQ's.

Strick wrote in post #4780831
I want to get a 300mm for racing. I am thinking the EF 300 f/2.8, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 or the 120-300 f/2.8. I am pretty positive that I will be using atleast a 1.4 converter at times and even a 2x at others. I want to go with a 300 since I really can't afford a longer one at the moment unless you can recommend a real good choice in 500mm.

I am thinking that IS will not be a huge factor for racing pics as I will be doing panning shots and using a monopod. I am just looking for the lens that will give me great IQ including when using 2x converter, but not make me completely broke.

I have a 100-400 at the moment and would either keep it or replace it with a 70-200 to use on my second body.

If you are not bothered about IS, weather sealing,AF stop button I would go for the sigma. It will do what you want well,I wanted the other functions so got the canon.I did try the sigma and it was ok but as I hand hold most of the time the IS comes in handy.

Not to hijack the thread, but what about the Canon 300 f4L IS? I was recommended this by a friend. The price is certainly very attractive, but what about the IS is use? Is the IQ compromise enough to rule this lens out?
cheers,