Canon 300 f2.8 L IS USM v. Sigma 300 f2.8 EX DG HSM

Nice comparison LR, the 300 f2.8L IS performed as expected. I contemplated getting this lens for a month or so but bit the bullet and never turned back, one of the best optics money can buy!

Kyl3 wrote in post #6872626
You will regret getting the 300 instead of the 400 though?

Well I haven't made my mind up yet. There's a lot to think about , pro's and con's . But the 2.8 and even 4.0 @ 420mm sounds really nice, compared to 400mm @ 5.6.

One general rule for birding lenses is to get the longer lens even if it is slower. Also, it is generally not advisable to get a lens that you only plan on using with TCs.

condyk wrote in post #6874771
I am mainly interested in the f8 performance with a 2x TCon but I think VR/IS would be the clincher for me

Dave, the 300 f2.8 IS delivers the best, bar none, performance using TCs I've seen to date. If I have one gripe, however, with the lens is that it's only a 2-stop generation IS unit. How sweet would a 4-stopper be in this cracker, something like the 7-2 f4 IS unit.

willz75 wrote in post #6875553
Nice comparison LR, the 300 f2.8L IS performed as expected. I contemplated getting this lens for a month or so but bit the bullet and never turned back, one of the best optics money can buy!

Thanks Will. No disagreement here!

CountryBoy wrote in post #6875785
Well I haven't made my mind up yet. There's a lot to think about , pro's and con's . But the 2.8 and even 4.0 @ 420mm sounds really nice, compared to 400mm @ 5.6.

CB, not sure which lenses you're specifically referring to here (300 f2.8 IS, 300 f4 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 400 f5.6?), but yesterday while holding and shooting with both my 300 f4 IS and 300 f2.8 IS, how nice was it to have the "little brother" mounted being so much lighter. Just night and day. It's always give and take, I tell ya'

LightRules wrote in post #6876695
CB, not sure which lenses you're specifically referring to here (300 f2.8 IS, 300 f4 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 400 f5.6?), but yesterday while holding and shooting with both my 300 f4 IS and 300 f2.8 IS, how nice was it to have the "little brother" mounted being so much lighter. Just night and day. It's always give and take, I tell ya'

Lol , I was talking about the 300mm 2.8L IS vs the 400mm 5.6L.

CountryBoy wrote in post #6879286
Lol , I was talking about the 300mm 2.8L IS vs the 400mm 5.6L.

Oh man, the 400 f5.6 is *significantly* lighter and smaller than the 300 f2.8 IS. But you probably already knew that

Get a 300L F2.8 if you have a 1.6x crop body. For 1d body, get a 400L F5.6 and 1.4x converter. Yes, the sigma lens at 100% crop does have a smudge look to them versus the more sharper Canon one. I can confirm it with my experience with a Sigma 500 DG EX HSM.

LightRules wrote in post #6879381
Oh man, the 400 f5.6 is *significantly* lighter and smaller than the 300 f2.8 IS. But you probably already knew that

The nice thing about the 120-300 when I used it much more was its ability to zoom when I shot sports with one body. But i've used the 300 sigma nikon mount and it was nice as well. They've done an excellent job here.

And Jo, you did an excellent job with your findings as always. Truly one of the treasures of this forum.

Good to see you around still, Greg. I agree about the flexibility of the 120-300 f2.8. It's a nice optic with solid build and decently quick AF. I've got some real good keepers from that lens shooting some U10 soccer last year. It's a goodie.

grego wrote in post #6879624
The nice thing about the 120-300 when I used it much more was its ability to zoom when I shot sports with one body. But i've used the 300 sigma nikon mount and it was nice as well. They've done an excellent job here.

And Jo, you did an excellent job with your findings as always. Truly one of the treasures of this forum.

gasrocks wrote in post #6875904
Also, it is generally not advisable to get a lens that you only plan on using with TCs.

Why?

Does the 300 2.8 + 1.4x used at f5.6 give worse image quality than the 400 f5.6 used wide open?

Apart from price and weight, what advantages does the 400 5.6 have over the 300 + TC?

Because the 300 + TC seems to have several advantages over the 400 f5.6

• Can be used at f4
  
• Has IS
  
• Can be used at 300mm f2.8
  
• Can take a 1.4TC and still AF on the non-pro bodies

Nicely done, as usual.

;}

hollis_f wrote in post #6880981
Apart from price and weight, what advantages does the 400 5.6 have over the 300 + TC?

Because the 300 + TC seems to have several advantages over the 400 f5.6

• Can be used at f4
  
• Has IS
  
• Can be used at 300mm f2.8
  
• Can take a 1.4TC and still AF on the non-pro bodies

As far as I can see, if one is willing to spend the money and is able to carry the extra weight, the 300 + TC is a much better option than the 400.

He specifically wrote: "if you plan to only use it with tc", so the 300 @ F/2.8 argument does not apply.

Why do you dismiss price and weight as arguments?

Rudeofus wrote in post #6881841
He specifically wrote: "if you plan to only use it with tc", so the 300 @ F/2.8 argument does not apply.

With this lens, even if one "plans" to only use it with a TC, one will soon fall under the spell of the amazing images obtainable without a TC. So I stand by my claim that it is an advantage.

Rudeofus wrote in post #6881841
Why do you dismiss price and weight as arguments?

I don't. I specifically mention that these are advantages of the 400 f5.6. I ask if there are any other advantages because, for me, these two came nowhere near outweighing the advantages of the 300 f2.8.

hollis_f wrote in post #6881975
I don't. I specifically mention that these are advantages of the 400 f5.6. I ask if there are any other advantages because, for me, these two came nowhere near outweighing the advantages of the 300 f2.8.

That strongly depends on available budget. If I as a hobbyist with family and no stellar income spent 4k on a lens (regardless of what it does) they'd haul me off to the mental ward. An 1.5k lens, possibly 1k used may at least be an option for me.

So I agree that the 300 F/2.8 option has technical merit, it may still be overkill for the intended purpose. Even for business it's a good idea to evaluate whether the significant extra cost for this combo is justified.

Rudeofus wrote in post #6888303
So I agree that the 300 F/2.8 option has technical merit, it may still be overkill for the intended purpose. Even for business it's a good idea to evaluate whether the significant extra cost for this combo is justified.

Couldn't agree more. I was made redundant from my part-time lecturing post and my severance payment (which I wasn't expecting) was about 75% of the cost of this lens.