Little League Samples w Sigma 120-300 & TC

Canon 1.4x tc on the Sigma 120-300 on a MkII. Seems a fuzz slower AF than the Canon 70-200 2.8 w/ the TC but not much. The reach is awesome and the zoom was really handy especially on the smaller little league fields...

These look good Scott. I was considering this lens for a while but I think I am just going to save up for the 300 2.8L. How does quality compare to the 70-200?

Looks good Scott.

crazyskillz07 wrote in post #5503982
These look good Scott. I was considering this lens for a while but I think I am just going to save up for the 300 2.8L. How does quality compare to the 70-200?

Scott - nice work. This lens is just about the perfect focal length for Little League baseball, isn't it?

I have owned and used a 120-300 f/2.8 for three years. For the first two, this was my main long lens. This lens took me from being a serious amateur to being a pro, and made me enough money to buy a 20D, a MkIIn, an EF 400 f/2.8L IS and myriad other lenses and pieces of gear.

What it is: a GREAT bargain that costs significantly less than the 300 f/2.8L; a lens that produces excellent results that will almost always rival "L" quality.. Zoom is very handy, and the ability to zoom out to 120m sometimes will save a shot.

What is isn't: An "L" lens. This means it isn't as sturdily built; it isn't weatherproof; the image quality can sometimes fall slightly below a white lens (though almost nobody will be able to tell); and ultimately, the AF is just a bit slower (though usually this won't be seen or noticed).

Thanks guys. I am seriously considering trading my 70-200 for this lens right now (the one I am shooting with is borrowed from a bud who want to sell it to get a 70-200). I figure I can pick up another 70-200 come winter but since the next 5 months are field sports dominant, the 120-300 will serve me better. Even if I don't get the 70-200 right away, I can still shoot this lens and my 100 f2 for hoops and be okay.

Dennis, you're right that it's just slightly slower than the L but I found that if I prefocused most of the way, the slightly slower AF was then unnoticeable. Great to hear that you had success with this one as well.

Chris, just cuz I'm liking this doesn't mean I don't want to try your 400 if you come to town!!

Crazy, believe it or not, Sigma actually has said that this zoom is sharper than their 300 prime.

Scott, Great Photos, There are times I wish I had a zoom. I find using a 300mm with a 1.6 crop seems to be just a little long at times. Enjoy it !! To bad you can't figure a way to keep your 70-200 lens.

Paul S wrote in post #5505406
Scott, Great Photos, There are times I wish I had a zoom. I find using a 300mm with a 1.6 crop seems to be just a little long at times. Enjoy it !! To bad you can't figure a way to keep your 70-200 lens.

My best plan to keep it is to only use it when my wife isn't around to see!

Scott, can't see the pictures.

Dennis - Do you still have your 120-300mm f2.8? I am looking for one sharp copy.

Looks good, Scott! I may have to borrow it from ya!

Nice shots. But do you think you need 1.4xTC on it all the time? Just asking as I never shot little league. I would think 300mm would be enough expcept for the outfield stuff.

bobbyz wrote in post #5508694
Nice shots. But do you think you need 1.4xTC on it all the time? Just asking as I never shot little league. I would think 300mm would be enough expcept for the outfield stuff.

I don't think the 1.4 is necessary in many instances. I used it here since it would my only chance to shoot it before a big LAX tourney I have this coming weekend and wanted to see how it performed on this glass.

I suspect I'd find just slightly quicker AF sans 1.4 TC and may very well shoot the tourney that way. I'll be sure to post some image samples afterwards.

FWIW, I shoot little kids through big kids baseball, all with a 400. IMO, there is no such thing as being too tight

Bobby, I might be selling my Sigma, and I'll let you know it I do. There are a couple other folks who have expressed an interest.

dmwierz wrote in post #5511541
FWIW, I shoot little kids through big kids baseball, all with a 400. IMO, there is no such thing as being too tight

Bobby, I might be selling my Sigma, and I'll let you know it I do. There are a couple other folks who have expressed an interest.

Interesting that 400mm f2.8 works out fine on little leagues fields. Do let me know about your sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (if and when you plan to sell). I need either that or 300mm f2.8 IS. Nice thing with Sigma is that I can work with only 1 body.

dmwierz wrote in post #5511541
FWIW, I shoot little kids through big kids baseball, all with a 400. IMO, there is no such thing as being too tight

I do the same thing.

namasste wrote in post #5504869
Chris, just cuz I'm liking this doesn't mean I don't want to try your 400 if you come to town!!

When I get there Scott you can use it or the 300/2.8 all you want too.

Sledhed wrote in post #5517625
I do the same thing.

When I get there Scott you can use it or the 300/2.8 all you want too.

udaman Chris! Can't wait.