300 f/4 IS vs 100-300 f/4

Used to own the 100-300 then sold it for the 300 f/4 IS. A month ago I bought my old 100-300 back and now own both. I used them for Soccer over the weekend and here's what I find:

300 f/4 IS Pros

-Sharper than the Sigma

100-300 f/4 Pros

-Much more contrasty and saturated than the Canon
-Zoom allows for more photo opportunities and better framing
-AF is faster than the Canon
-Much less purple fringing than Canon, even with the (Sigma) 1.4xTC

This comparison is based on using the two lenses for field sports only. The Canon is actually more versatile than the Sigma as an all-arounder due to it's IS, smaller size, lighter wieght and better MFD. I will be keeping both lenses .

I'm considering these two lenses.. for HS football.

Did you try either at night?

Neither is good for night football. You'll want f/2.8...

Generally I agree with this, Ian. I found the L to be slightly sharper with both at 300mm f4. They are pretty darn close 1 stop down, at least with my copies. However, I didn't find the contrast of the EX to be better; again I think they are very close in this regard. The EX being a zoom is flat out impressive being compared here to an L prime. But the Sigma is really that good. I do agree though that the EX's AF is a bit quicker than the L, oddly enough. This is rack to rack, of course. Use the focus limiter on the L, and it's a different story. But the Sigma 1-3 EX is one of the fastest AF'ing Sigma's I've ever used. In fact, the only faster one I've used is the 300 f2.8 EX DG HSM...and even they are close!

Nice to have both, eh?

PS: Day to day, I like the L for its smaller size and weight and IS. But that Sigma is one heck of a zoom.

twoshadows wrote in post #8609194
Used to own the 100-300 then sold it for the 300 f/4 IS. A month ago I bought my old 100-300 back and now own both. I used them for Soccer over the weekend and here's what I find:

300 f/4 IS Pros

-Sharper than the Sigma

100-300 f/4 Pros

-Much more contrasty and saturated than the Canon
-Zoom allows for more photo opportunities and better framing
-AF is faster than the Canon
-Much less purple fringing than Canon, even with the (Sigma) 1.4xTC

This comparison is based on using the two lenses for field sports only. The Canon is actually more versatile than the Sigma as an all-arounder due to it's IS, smaller size, lighter wieght and better MFD. I will be keeping both lenses .

I know.. i'm in Denial.. That $4000 is tough to swallow! (300 2.8 )

If I would use a 100-300 with my 5d2 @ 6400, would that be more of an advantage than the 50d @ 3200 with a slower SS, but better AF/crop?

I saw you also had the 135l and a 1.4 converter.. Have you ever used that combo for football/soccer at night?

F/2.8 is certainly better...

twoshadows wrote in post #8609362
Neither is good for night football. You'll want f/2.8...

I would not choose an f/4 lens for night H.S. football but, if your camera can manage ISO 3200; you can get some good imagery using an f/4 lens. See the images submitted by Jman13 in the third reply on this string. The images are awesome for an f/4 lens.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=746074

Drozz119 wrote in post #8609411
I know.. i'm in Denial.. That $4000 is tough to swallow! (300 2.8 )

If I would use a 100-300 with my 5d2 @ 6400, would that be more of an advantage than the 50d @ 3200 with a slower SS, but better AF/crop?

I saw you also had the 135l and a 1.4 converter.. Have you ever used that combo for football/soccer at night?

Regarding the 135L and TC - the combo suffered from so much ghosting that my newspaper editor commented on it. Not sure what exactly caused it . I use the 70-200 for night football. Seems like the 200 f/2 IS would be the ticket, though .

LightRules wrote in post #8609405
Generally I agree with this, Ian. I found the L to be slightly sharper with both at 300mm f4. They are pretty darn close 1 stop down, at least with my copies. However, I didn't find the contrast of the EX to be better; again I think they are very close in this regard. The EX being a zoom is flat out impressive being compared here to an L prime. But the Sigma is really that good. I do agree though that the EX's AF is a bit quicker than the L, oddly enough. This is rack to rack, of course. Use the focus limiter on the L, and it's a different story. But the Sigma 1-3 EX is one of the fastest AF'ing Sigma's I've ever used. In fact, the only faster one I've used is the 300 f2.8 EX DG HSM...and even they are close!

Nice to have both, eh?

PS: Day to day, I like the L for its smaller size and weight and IS. But that Sigma is one heck of a zoom.

I agree - day to day (esp for pj work) the L is my choice, but for daytime field sports the Sigma is a monstah...

And yeah, I'm a fortunate guy. I get to keep both and my wife .

twoshadows wrote in post #8609194
Used to own the 100-300 then sold it for the 300 f/4 IS. A month ago I bought my old 100-300 back and now own both. I used them for Soccer over the weekend and here's what I find:

300 f/4 IS Pros

-Sharper than the Sigma

100-300 f/4 Pros

-Much more contrasty and saturated than the Canon
-Zoom allows for more photo opportunities and better framing
-AF is faster than the Canon
-Much less purple fringing than Canon, even with the (Sigma) 1.4xTC

This comparison is based on using the two lenses for field sports only. The Canon is actually more versatile than the Sigma as an all-arounder due to it's IS, smaller size, lighter wieght and better MFD. I will be keeping both lenses .

It also works pretty good as a wildlife lens with th 1.4 tc. Yes OS would help in that regard, but I don't mind using a pod of some type.
My main reason for buying it, was for field sports, baseball and soccer. But it's mostly used for youth baseball now. For a ones lens set-up, it's hard to beat . The AF speed and it's ability to lock on a play is fantastic !

AS LightRules said " it's one heck of a zoom"

twoshadows wrote in post #8609194
Used to own the 100-300 then sold it for the 300 f/4 IS. A month ago I bought my old 100-300 back and now own both. I used them for Soccer over the weekend and here's what I find:

300 f/4 IS Pros

-Sharper than the Sigma

100-300 f/4 Pros

-Much more contrasty and saturated than the Canon
-Zoom allows for more photo opportunities and better framing
-AF is faster than the Canon
-Much less purple fringing than Canon, even with the (Sigma) 1.4xTC

This comparison is based on using the two lenses for field sports only. The Canon is actually more versatile than the Sigma as an all-arounder due to it's IS, smaller size, lighter wieght and better MFD. I will be keeping both lenses .

Can you post your best shot with both lenses? Interested to see the "contrasty" and "saturation" difference.

Will do, Scott. But not tonight - too late for me.

No problem. Appreciate it. I'm considering both lenses and would love your input.

I am toying with the idea of getting the 300/f4/IS for the times at events where I can't get a good spot.

If the Sigma had IS, that would make it very hard to choose between the two, for me.

The downside to both... another (big, heavy) lens to drag around all day.

bohdank wrote in post #8617510
I am toying with the idea of getting the 300/f4/IS for the times at events where I can't get a good spot.

If the Sigma had IS, that would make it very hard to choose between the two, for me.

The downside to both... another (big, heavy) lens to drag around all day.

300 f/4 IS will fit in a (Domke) vest pocket .

OK,

Here's the comparison. Naked 300 f/4 IS stopped down to f/5.6 vs 100-300 f/4 + TC wide open. Here are the pics, each processed identically in DPP with all control set to zero, including sharpening. Cropped (almost identically) and resized in PS. Again, no sharpening. The exifs are intact, but see first if you can guess which pic belongs to which lens . Keep in mind that I had the camera on AWB, so any differences in color are most likely due to that.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'