Help With Sports Lens - Canon or Sigma

Canon and put the rest towards fast primes.

Sigma 120-300 @ 300mm

I appreciate all the responses. I placed a call to rent the Sigma lens and it will be arriving next week. I'll do the same thing with the Canon and see what happens. This is about the only way to really make a sound decision as the forum demonstrates everyone has got their preference. Thanks again.

Save a little longer and get the 300... if its what you want and need you will end up upgrading anyway.

Looking forward to your comparison.
I use the 120-300mm on a 40D and love it.
This gallery shows Field Hockey taken at night under lights. 95% of the shots are at ISO3200 f2.8 centre point focus, AI, simultaneous zooming and focus. I found that the 40D focus speed at night with the 120-300mm was almost instantaneous. No problem keeping pace with running players
http://LeedingEdge.smu​gmug.com …6_zPFGb/1/31238​9597_eQNrN

elguevon wrote in post #5735568
I appreciate all the responses. I placed a call to rent the Sigma lens and it will be arriving next week. I'll do the same thing with the Canon and see what happens. This is about the only way to really make a sound decision as the forum demonstrates everyone has got their preference. Thanks again.

Very sensible. At least you can then choose after expereince with both lenses rather than reading internet reviews and listening to ill-informed gossip

Thing with Sigma 120-300mm is that in the end everyone who owns one ends up with Canon 300mm/400 f2.8 IS. main thing going for Sigma is price and then zoom range so you don't need 2 bodies at the same time. So you should try both and see which one works for you.

I've not used the 120-300, but have heard very good reports about it.

I'd miss IS. The 70-200/2.8 IS is one of my primary user lenses. I carry a 1.4X for use with it, when I don't have the 300/2.8 IS handy.

Yeah, yeah... I know someone is going to respond that IS is of little use for sports shooting. I disagree. For one thing, it can help insure a sharp shot even at faster speeds. Two, I like to do slower shutter pans and such some of the time, with and without flash, just because I get a bit tired of seeing every shot be a "frozen in mid air" sports moment. If I were shooting for Sports Illustrated, I might feel differently.

How about a different setup than either of those lenses.

I shoot sports for a college athletics department, and have been using the 70-200 2.8 for its versatility in and outside. Great images, but the length is limiting outside. Plus, under poor lighting conditions the 2.8 is pushing it.

I just sold the lens and am purchasing the Sigma 100-300 F4 and the Canon 135 F2 L. I also have a Kenko 1.4 TC. The Sigma gets terrific reviews and can cover everything outdoors during the day, plus the samples I've seen with the 1.4 TC are close to the Canon 100-400 wide open.

The 135 F2 gives you better quality indoors than the the 120-300 2.8 will and will allow you to shoot at ISO 800 rather than 1600. Plus, it can be used outdoors when the action is in front of you, and works great with the TC giving you a 190 2.8 prime.

Basically, I decided to give up 100mm of length at night for field sports in order to get better quality pictures with the 135 L. Plus, you can get both lenses for about $1400-1500 total and will save about $500.

Personally I will never buy the Canon 300 f2.8 as I need a zoom, Showjumping has so many jumps around a large arena that I can cover nearly all of them with the Sigma. Went to a Canon open day today and tried out the 200 f2/ 300 f2.8/ 400 f2.8/ 500 f4 and all of them except the 200 f2 are very limiting in that you have no zoom or leeway in competitiors coming towards you.