Which, Sigma 120-300 2.8 or Canon 70-200 2.8 IS?

I'll be selling my 100-400, because I don't find it sharp enough at 5.6, and I have a thing about sharpness, so combined with my 10D's sometimes inaccurate focussing it is really irritating. So I was thinking of getting either of the lens in the title, I have yet to hear anything about either of them... I will probably miss the reach and zoom of the 100-400 so in terms of reach Sigma wins, OTOH, 70-200IS is highly respected for a good reason, it's 2.8 with IS and it's also sharp at that.

Just give me some of your cents, please...

What do you normally photograph? If you really need the extra reach then I would go with the Sigma but I'm sure people here will argue that you need the L no matter what.

Depends which focal length you need most. They're both wonderful lenses, optically superb and well built. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 can be hand held and the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 really needs some form of support, either a monopod or a tripod.

If you need 300mm get the Sigma. You're not going to get a better 300mm lens without going to one of the Canon L primes. You certainly won't get a better 300mm zoom. If 200mm is enough, then get the Canon.

I would say it depends on the rest of your bag.. What do you have in your bag that goes up to this point? Personally, I just ordered the 70-200L IS... WHY? My tamron 28-75 will cover the range to that point... So, if you have something that will cover the range to the 70mm area, go with the canon, or the 120mm go with the sigma... They are both GREAT lenses... I wanted the IS though, I spend alot of time on the water and in the AIR so the IS will work out good with me..

I have the Sigma. The Sigma is a fine lens, but has one problem: I it huge and heavy! Not really something that you can drag around and shoot handheld with like the 100-400 that also have IS. Shooting more than just a few shots, at least I feel like getting out the monopod or the heave tripod to balance things and to keep the lens steady. I tried the 100-400 at it seems much work like a walk-around lens.

I have not even considered the weight issue here... As you say, the 100-400 is pretty light, and it actually feels lighter than it looks, right? Well, after a few weeks of this lens permanently attached you sort of forget about the weight, that can be painful if you're holding the camera for extensive periods of time. After some time I put on my trusty 50mm 1.8 and as soon as I picked up the camera I thought I forgot to load both batteries (using grip), yeah, it felt like featherlight. And now, considering that the 70-200IS weighs 1600g, Sigma 120-300 2600g... the 70-200 wins the round (100-400 weighs 1360g, ). Despite owning both, a tripod and monopod, I'm not really a big fan of using either, I just like to be unobtrusive, flexible, easy to move, and unnoticable - if that was even possible with a huge camera and a grand white lens.

Long range is always useful, as you know, there are plenty of times when you wish you had a 1200mm lens, right? So why would I be willing to trade 400mm for 200mm? Sharpness. That's it. I've taken some shots @ 400mm and they turned unsharp and I was so pi$$ed off and I just couldn't believe it. Still, those extra 100mm are very, very tempting....

Well, if it's not obvious, I'll state it for the record: I do love the 100-400 but it really requires sunny days and I'm not living in California, if you catch my drift. F/8 is when it becomes really sharp and f/8 I can usually not afford.

My lens are as follows:
Tamron 17-35 f/2.8
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon 50mm f/1 (friend let me have it for a few weeks, btw, he's selling it, anyone wanna buy? )
Canon 100-400L

What I need the lens for: I've tried birds, but they take time and patience and I run out of both quickly, motorsports, airshows, portraits, candids, concerts (I have seen guys with 70-200 2.8IS there), and last but definetely not least - to impress chicks.

the Canon will cover everything you want it to execpt the airshows.. 200mm will do it but not as good as your 400mm and the Sigma would fit it better but the IS of the canon would work better. You wouldn't be pointing a camera up into the air and shoot at a 2.8 stop though eaither so you could throw on a 1.4x and extend it out a bit but maybe the 300mm might be alittle better for you

karusel wrote:
and last but definetely not least - to impress chicks.

Actually, I know of a couple chicks that prefer my big monopod! LOL

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I would always prefer original Canon lenses over any non-canon ones

Buy both, you know you want to.

Hmmm, Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 1.4x extender = 168-420 f4, that's not too shabby.

I'm afraid that really is the answer. I have the Canon 70-200 f/4, the 100-400L and the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and they each have their uses... but as I've said many times on here... if I had to keep just one it would be the Sigma.

True... and it's a combination that works very well indeed.

The Sigma does weigh a fair bit, that's true, but then so does any 300mm f/2.8 lens - it's a price you have to pay. Not surprisingly it weighs almost exactly the same as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L.

Mmm.. well if size is their thing, the Sigma is your lens

BTW,

Who the heck is Daniel A Vegso , I have his SIG though!!! lol

Kenski wrote:
BTW,

Who the heck is Daniel A Vegso , I have his SIG though!!! lol

That's the same sig I had. Canada, right?

Karusel,
I just bought the 120-300. I wrestled beteen the 120-300 & Canon's 300 2.8L. I cannot make your decision for you with a difinitive answer, but I can give you my take on the two lenses referenced in the post title. I have both.

I think each has it's own uses and comparing is difficult. They have similiar focal lengths but are different lenses.

I wanted to also note that I have both Canon & Sigma 1.4X extenders for each. After receiving the 120-300 I wanted to compare it to the 70-200. I used a monopod for each, because that is how I would use the lenses for sports. With and without the extenders at the same focal lenghts the images from each are a visual tie. I am very impressed with the Sigma.

I could not imagine hand holding the 120-300. Now this is where the advantage goes to the 70-200 IS. This is why I say the lenses are similiar but much different. When it comes to focal length the nod goes to the 120-300, naturally.

I would like to say it is a coin toss, but it isn't. I now have 3 lenses (24-70,70-200, and the 120-300). Each is unique, each has it's own applications. If the 120-300 was too similiar to the 70-200 IS I would have exchanged it for the 300 2.8 (cost is also a factor, the 300 2.8 is almost double the cost of the Sigma).

If you want an all around versitle lens go for the Canon. If you want a longer sports lens go for the Sigma.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Rob

Yeah, Canada too.... All fixed now!!