sigma 120-300 f/2.8 or sigma 300 f/2.8 prime

I am looking for a longer telephoto lens, mainly for ocean wildlife. I would love the canon 400 or 500mm, but they are way out of my budget especially after buying new gear this year. I would be shooting at the longer end most of the time, so which of the two is a better lens? I have looked and looked, but haven't really found a lot of info on them? I also wouldn't mind buying used so if you know any for sale let me know, also seems hard to find used. I would be using a 1.4 for extra length as I have heard the 2.0 hurts iq pretty significantly. So what do you say?

I would assume the prime has better IQ. If you don't need 2.8, look into the Canon 400mm 5.6 or Sigma 150-500

How about a used Canon 300mm 2.8?!?!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=893414

I would prefer the 2.8 for lower light applications and I saw that canon 300 2.8, but I find it hard to pay that much money on well used lens, even though I think it is a fair price.

Look also for a used SIGMA 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM if you think you will be shooting at longer FL.. I got mine for $2k in like new condition. Prices have gone up since then, but the used market is still very good for the Sigma's.

As to the zoom vs. the Prime,. IMHO the prime is slightly better IQ, and more consistent quality control, but many insist that the zoom is better both in IQ and AF speed,. but then, many have had to buy several copies of the zoom to get that, or send it in to Sigma one or more times.
I ne ver shot them side by side, bit my feeling based on memory was that teh Zoom was one of the est Zooms I've ever used period. Super fast AF, and excellent image quality.
The prime was what I expect from a top of the line super telephoto prime. Beautiful image quality and very fast HASM autofocus.
In this case I think it is fair to base the decision on whether a zoom's flexibility is important. But, If you think you'll use it at the long end all the time, with teleconverters to go longer, than the prime makes more sense to me.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #10434814
Look also for a used SIGMA 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM if you think you will be shooting at longer FL.. I got mine for $2k in like new condition. Prices have gone up since then, but the used market is still very good for the Sigma's.

As to the zoom vs. the Prime,. IMHO the prime is slightly better IQ, and more consistent quality control, but many insist that the zoom is better both in IQ and AF speed,. but then, many have had to buy several copies of the zoom to get that, or send it in to Sigma one or more times.
I ne ver shot them side by side, bit my feeling based on memory was that teh Zoom was one of the est Zooms I've ever used period. Super fast AF, and excellent image quality.
The prime was what I expect from a top of the line super telephoto prime. Beautiful image quality and very fast HASM autofocus.
In this case I think it is fair to base the decision on whether a zoom's flexibility is important. But, If you think you'll use it at the long end all the time, with teleconverters to go longer, than the prime makes more sense to me.

How do you like your 500? Is it hand holdable? I maybe locations where a tripod or monopod is not feasible. Thanks, richard

I do agree that it is well used, I was just showing that there are used 300L's out there to be had for only slighty more then the Sigma, you get IS, an unbeatable image quality and weather sealing. Thats what I would be gunning for if I was you. =)

Im also not the one spending 3 grand....So would get what ever would make you happy! The 120-300 is supposed to be excellent.

skater911 wrote in post #10434829
How do you like your 500? Is it hand holdable? I maybe locations where a tripod or monopod is not feasible. Thanks, richard

I shot with the Sigma for about two years before getting the Canon 500mm with IS,.
IS means I can absolutely hand hold the Canon and get good results, however the Sigma is lighter, so easier to carry, yet lack of IS means a poor keeper ratio hand held.

Here's a side by side review I did some years back;

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=69791

Unless I really really needed f2.8 and 300mm, I would save my money and go with canon 400mm f5.6. I don't know what you shooting that requires f2.8 particularly with 5dmk2 of yours. Otherwise I will save my pennies and get canon 300mm f2.8, IS or older non IS. You had 5dmk2, 35L, 135mmf2 and why not got for top rated glass for higher focal lengths? Whaever anybody says there is reason sigms 300mm offerings are so much cheaper than canon.

Someone selling the EOS mount 500mm on e-bay with the right starting price;

http://cgi.ebay.com …enses&hash=item​23083e37b7

I really like my 120-300/2.8, it practically paid for itself the first time I used it. It it is definitely not hand holdable for any length of time, a good monopod is a necessity.

I have both the 1.4x and 2x Sigma TCs, but haven't used them with the 120-300 (yet). I may have to give it a whirl over the long weekend.

Go with the 120-300 f/2.8 - it's fantastic with the matching Sigma 1.4x TC, giving up little, if anything in speed and IQ. It does not play well with other TCs though.

When I was researching this, it seems the concensus was (even from Sigma) the zoom was sharper. I tried the 120-300 and it was at times very sharp, but I had focus consistancy issues with it. I sold it and got an older 300/2.8L (non-is) and have been very happy with the choice.

Birds or mammals? With birds, 300mm isn't long enough. You can consider the 500 F4.5 from Sigma. BTW, the 300mm zoom has better IQ.

I did a super fast and totally unscientific test of the 120-300 bare, with 1.4x tc and with 2x tc (first time I've used either TC since I got them).

Shots were all taken on a monopod, but I was in a bit of a hurry and had nothing else to use for extra stability. Hopefully the shutter speed was high enough to deal with camera shake.

I shot "wide open" and stopped down one full stop for each focal length. For me, the most surprising (and pleasant) result is how good the image with the 2x tc looks with just that one stop ( 600mm, f/8 )

Sorry for the boring subject, most of the backyard was in shade by the time I got home so I had to look to the sky for a well lit subject.

Attached are 100% crops, no sharpening was applied in PP. All shots taken with a 1DMkIII, Av mode, and I bumped the ISO as needed to keep the shutter above 1/1000 in all cases.


300mm, f/2.8