Seeking advice from sports shooters

Dont get me wrong, if canon came out with a zoom up to 300 2.8, I'd drop the sigma for it in a hurry. But that flexability with my shooting style, or lack of talent, whichever way you want to look at it, is helpful to me.

I am also interested in Sigma 120-300 lens for hockey, my son's games.
Does the DG make any difference over the non DG?
THanks

eigga wrote in post #8638279
I have seen great results with the 120-300 which is why I mentioned it in my first post, but I do know of several who have complained of slower focus (as compared to canon 300/400) especially in lower light. However for the price and the FL it is a great option for those short of the funds for the canon 300/400.

Secondly, I know I see very few on the sidelines from most pros so there has to be a reason people spend the extra $$ for the canon glass... focus speed, focus ability, color/contrast? weather sealing?

Color and contrast... hmmm I'd say its on par with Canon.. yes the canon is a step above. Especially in the durability and weather sealing department. But like I said above, its such a small step in my opinion that the flexability of the zoom for things like football make it worth it.

Being able to stay stationary and adjust the zoom to get the shots as the action moves down field is a big bonus to me. For things like baseball where I'm stuck in a photo well or something its also a bonus. Being able to get full body view of both 1st and 3rd base without switching camera's or lenses is a plus.

EDIT:.. lol that looks like crap.. I better add sRGB conversion to the post list.. there thats better.

Here is a quick baseball grab shot with that lens. Minimal post, +10 clarity, +10 vibrance and unsharp mask. You tell me about color and contrast?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

very nice shot

Here's a couple from Friday night with flash on the monopod.
1D MK III, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
I sure like the ability to zoom in our out.
Mike

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks

carshop wrote in post #8638934
Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks

Mine is the DG version, I really dont know about the difference in performance between that and the older version. I've seen ones like mine go used for around 2k.

Thanks Bill

No problem.. here is a hockey example for you. Extremely bad conditions, horrible lighting. High ISO. And not the best picture in the world, but just an example of the color contrast of that lens even in bad bad light.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I think I need to get this lens.
Thanks Bill

My 120-300mm wasn't comparable to canon 300mm f2.8 IS. There is a reason one goes for $1600 while other is $3500. I am talking used prices. Now some folks are lucky to have a perfect copy but I think they are quite rare. But for the money it is worth it and has a zoom.Some send their body to sigma along with the lens so they can tune the combo.

I sold mine but stupid usps almost lost is transit. For some reason it didn't work well on buyers 1dmk3 so I took it back. With new baby at the time, I couldn't find the time to relist it. If someone wants it, let me know (non DG version) but with new long lens collar like the DG version.

One more thing, in one shot mode, mine was quite sharp while in AI servo it was softer. I will probably try it next game to see how it is working.

Here is shot from yr ago.

bobbyz wrote in post #8639126
My 120-300mm wasn't comparable to canon 300mm f2.8 IS. There is a reason one goes for $1600 while other is $3500. I am talking used prices. Now some folks are lucky to have a perfect copy but I think they are quite rare. Some send their body to sigma along with the lens so they can tune the combo. But for the money it is worth it and has a zoom.

I sold mine but stupid usps almost lost is transit. For some reason it didn't work well on buyers 1dmk3 so I took it back. With new baby at the time, I couldn't find the time to relist it. If someone wants it, let me know (non DG version) but with new long lens collar like ht eDG version.

Well there is some possible feedback on the NON-DG version. I use my exclusively on my MKIII's.. no issues on either body.

I've shot with both and currently own the Canon 300 and have to say I think its the right call for my style. I agree with Bill that when I am stuck in a photo well, the 300 sometimes limits me and swinging another body around amongst a bunch of shooters isnt always an option or can be done quickly enough to not miss something. Since I shoot more soccer than baseball though, I prefer the prime. I like the IQ better and for me, I shoot differently with a prime since I have to allow the action to present itself more which results in better images for me. That's a style thing really so consider how you shoot then decide. The zoom's flexibility is great but the prime produces better stuff for me.

On another note, I couldn't disagree any more strongly if I tried about the comment of not using a 1.4 with a 70-200. I've made a fair amount of money using that combo before getting the 300 and the images certainly weren't soft (anybody who has ever submitted images to Juli T. @ Maxpreps knows that they'd never see the light of day if they were). I'm not saying its the grail but the 1.4/70-200 combo is not something to dismiss. I usually have the 300 on one body and the 70-200 w tc on another at baseball games and the 300 w/ tc and bare 70-200 for other field sports and it seems to allow for very good flexibility. I've completely lost track of what this post was really about at this point but hopefully something I wrote means something to someone. later.

namasste wrote in post #8704971
I've shot with both and currently own the Canon 300 and have to say I think its the right call for my style. I agree with Bill that when I am stuck in a photo well, the 300 sometimes limits me and swinging another body around amongst a bunch of shooters isnt always an option or can be done quickly enough to not miss something. Since I shoot more soccer than baseball though, I prefer the prime. I like the IQ better and for me, I shoot differently with a prime since I have to allow the action to present itself more which results in better images for me. That's a style thing really so consider how you shoot then decide. The zoom's flexibility is great but the prime produces better stuff for me.

On another note, I couldn't disagree any more strongly if I tried about the comment of not using a 1.4 with a 70-200. I've made a fair amount of money using that combo before getting the 300 and the images certainly weren't soft (anybody who has ever submitted images to Juli T. @ Maxpreps knows that they'd never see the light of day if they were). I'm not saying its the grail but the 1.4/70-200 combo is not something to dismiss. I usually have the 300 on one body and the 70-200 w tc on another at baseball games and the 300 w/ tc and bare 70-200 for other field sports and it seems to allow for very good flexibility. I've completely lost track of what this post was really about at this point but hopefully something I wrote means something to someone. later.

I am glad Scott brought this up because I was surprised at the comment earlier.

the 1.4 is not that bad at all. You do not lose much sharpness.
I think the added elements make micro focusing a must if you have a capable body.

Especially since with a 300 f4 (sharp lens no doubt) you are stuck at f4.

carshop wrote in post #8638934
Does anyone anything about the Sigma 120-300 DG and Non DG?
Is there a difference?
Thanks

Not sure there is. Something to do with a coating on the lens. Mines a non DG version and I'm happy with it. Used in all weathers for soccer and motorcycle racing and it does the job. Heres one from last Saturday which was overcast and threatening rain.