Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: Carl Auer, guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Sports Corner Resource FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Image Upload 1 2 end

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime I picked up a Sigma 300mm 2.8 prime lens last week to use for Lacrosse, and as a backup to my 120-300, there wasn't much online regarding the performance of this lens compared to the Canon 300 2.8 L which I have owned in the past and also loved. The only review I have seen was the one by popular photographer, which stated the prime was a little faster and a little sharper than the zoom. I have to tell you after using this lens in the rain, during the day in the sun, and at a night lacrosse game with decent light but not great, I am completely impressed with its performance on a 40D! I don't hesitate when I say it rivals the canon 300 2.8 in AF speed and accuracy! I was actually contemplating selling the Sigma prime in the future to get the Canon but can honestly say there really is no reason to! This lens tracked the subject great, and stayed locked on the focus point even in very poor lighting. The AF is noticeably faster than the 120-300, and it is also noticeably sharper! I had the same problem using this lens that I did when using the canon 400 2.8, which images to delete and which to keep?? My keeper rate "Well focused images" went from 80% with the 120-300 to 95% with the prime! To be honest I really don't know why you don't see more of these lenses around? And it is about $1400 less expensive than the Canon and weighs about 1100 grams less! Yes I know some will say "it doesn't have IS" well when I shoot sports I never use IS so it is a non-issue for me. I really wish someone would do a comparison test between the Canon and Sigma 300 f2.8 lenses! I would love to see the findings! But as far as I am concerned the Sigma 300 f2.8 lens is a real gem of a lens! Here are some shots from yesterday. The day game were mostly iso 250-400 @ f3.5 The night game was iso 1600 @f2.8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33 AM

palexy Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Thanks for sharing Paul. The colors look quite good on my color corrected monitor. Did you have to do any PP to get them that saturated? Also, is this the newer DG version, or the original w/o the new coatings? Mar 14, 2008 at 01:54 AM

XFBO Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Man, I have got to thank you for this thread, I bought one of these secondhand about 4-6 months ago and have yet to use it for its intended purpose (motosports) so Ive been sitting on this lens all this time wondering if it'll perform anything like the Canon......your post gives me some relief/hope that it will. Mar 14, 2008 at 02:29 AM

sivrajbm Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Man, nice stuff. I'd wondered about this lens also. Nice job. Mar 14, 2008 at 03:26 AM

redal Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Well, it looks like the lens does a very good job. A question about the game , is there different rules for the boys and girls? As i see the guys with all the protective gear on and the girls just have eye protection on. Mar 14, 2008 at 04:37 AM

k.brown Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Girls lacrosse doesn't have body checking. Mar 14, 2008 at 07:23 AM

Andrew MacKay Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime I've had the older version of this lens for about 4 years now. A very nice piece of glass that has given me some damned nice images. On the minus side it struggles with AF in poor lighting conditions, and occasionaly loose's track completly and hunts right through the focus range, It's "ZEN" Coating on the body is comming off and not being as weather resistant as the Canon it is starting to show the conditions I use it in (Rodeo, Eventing, Rugby dirt, dust, Sand and Rain)... Whould I buy another one ? YES Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49 AM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime I did the same PP that I do with all my images, which for the day games is increase the contrast to about +10, add some pop with Vibrance adjustment in LR, and sharpen a bit. For the night games I used the LR NR a bit, and increased the exposure and brightness because I was shooting at -1/3 exp comp. As far as the lens it is the new DG version, and I also purchased the Lens Coat camo cover for it like I do for all my long lenses because I do use it at least 3 - 4 times a week in all weather conditions, the lens coat also feels nice on the hands and adds a bit or weather sealing, but once the rain starts, I pull out the rain gear regardless of which lens I have. Honestly I did not have an issue with locking onto a subject, it really performed well! I was surprised at how well it performed, and keep saying to myself when I was going through the night games "I can't believe these are all sharp! Like I said I have owned the Canon 300 2.8 IS, and 400 2.8 IS, and this sigma lens really can keep up! The canon may be a hair sharper, and maybe a little more contrasty, but not by much at all! and when you look at the Sigma lens it is smaller and much easier to handle. I really don't understand why there is not head to head competition between the canon and sigma, I think there are a lot of people out there that would love to see this comparison in performance between these two lenses. Thanks for all the comments, Paul. Mar 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM

oldtime Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Paul, Very nice images and glad you like the new lens 3 and 8 standout for me from this series I love my 120-300 and I am considering the 2.8 300 for another body while shooting My son was considering Dowling till he visited the campus Mar 14, 2008 at 12:01 PM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Dowling is a great school, and now that they have finally gotten a new sports complex it adds a lot to the program. Best of luck with the school search! Mar 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Scott Sewell Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Looks like that lens is working out very well for ya, Paul. Nice images. I'm curious, though...to me it seems redundent to have a 120-300 and a 300. Any specific reason for having both? Thanks. Mar 14, 2008 at 03:35 PM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime I actually like shooting field sports with a prime better than with a zoom, and also, the 1.4X works better on a prime. I consider the 120-300 a great lens to use for baseball, volleyball, and hockey, where the action gets really close to you at many points during the day. With Lacrosse, and other field sports 300mm is perfect for shots on goal. Also, I find the 300 prime to focus faster and stay locked on a subject better than the 120-300 did, and with a fast moving subjects like in lacrosse that is a big help. Paul Mar 14, 2008 at 04:01 PM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime redal wrote: Well, it looks like the lens does a very good job. A question about the game , is there different rules for the boys and girls? As i see the guys with all the protective gear on and the girls just have eye protection on. Yes, there is a BIG difference between these 2 sports! The boys play with contact, checking, you can poke at the player to try and get the ball. But the women really can't touch one another!! you can check the stick only if you hit the head of the stick! other than that you just have to run around and chase the player with the ball in hopes the ball will be dropped, or a clean check on the head of the stick. Everyone, including the girls that play the sport think they should just give them full pads and a helmet and let them play like the boys!! As far as action shots go, you have a lot more chances of getting a good action shot shooting boys lacrosse! I'm not saying there's no action in the girls game, you just have to really look for it with the girls. Mar 14, 2008 at 07:20 PM

MrMet388 Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Paul: Those images are razor sharp. That 300mm prime is something I have to look at. Great photos btw Joe Mar 14, 2008 at 10:40 PM

msack Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime 1-3 & 6 are my favorites, but these are all definitely keepers. You've done well with the nighttime shooting. Looks like that Sigma works well. All top notch images. Mike Mar 15, 2008 at 12:59 AM

S.Horton Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Nice! All of the men's shots look strong. That lens is very, very nice. Do you think you simply got a good copy of it, or does the lens carry, generally, a good reputation? #9 and #11 I enjoyed as a bit unusual, for my eye -- I only shoot youth -> high school, boys. Mar 16, 2008 at 04:20 AM

XFBO Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime S.Horton wrote: or does the lens carry, generally, a good reputation? It does on this site. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=128&sort=7&cat=38&page=1 Mar 17, 2008 at 12:36 AM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime It seems that everyone on who has owned it thinks it is a stellar lens, and this is the first one that I have ever owned, so I can't tell you if I have gotten a good copy or not. I can see this lens becoming my favorite lens to use very quickly because I like the way the images look right out of the camera! very sharp, spot on focus, and nice contrast. I have to do more adjusting with the 120-300 to get them to look close to what the sigma prime does without any adjusting. Like I said before, I wish someone would do a head to head with a canon 300 just to see how close the Sigma gets in IQ and AF Speed. I don't have a Canon 300 2.8 any more, but from what I remember this sigma is very very close to it in all aspects. Mar 17, 2008 at 01:16 AM

palexy Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Paul, I was wondering what your thoughts were with regard to how the lens physically handles in comparison to the 120-300 or the 300IS. I owned the non-DG 120-300 a couple of years ago and, as I recall, it was somewhat of a handful to shoot handheld for any length of time. Thanks again for sharing your photos. They've really got me thinking about this lens! Mar 17, 2008 at 02:18 PM

bobbyz Offline Buy and Sell: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Very nice pcitures. Question: I am in need of 300mm f2.8 IS and since money is an issue, I have been looking at the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. I get some what confused when I see that people mention how good 120-300mm f2.8 (and comparable to 300mm f2.8 IS) is and then read that Sigma 100-300mm f4 is sharper than the 120-300mm f2.8. I have seen how good canon prime is. So I were to give 10 to canon prime (for picture quality and AF) what would you give to Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 for picture quality and AF? What about Sigma 300mm f2.8? 2 of my friends bought 120-300mm f2.8 but weren't happy with the outcome even after sending it to sigma for calibration and ended up buying canon prime. So I am looking forward to people's opinions who own this lens. Mar 17, 2008 at 03:11 PM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime bobbyz wrote: Very nice pcitures. Question: I am in need of 300mm f2.8 IS and since money is an issue, I have been looking at the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. I get some what confused when I see that people mention how good 120-300mm f2.8 (and comparable to 300mm f2.8 IS) is and then read that Sigma 100-300mm f4 is sharper than the 120-300mm f2.8. I have seen how good canon prime is. So I were to give 10 to canon prime (for picture quality and AF) what would you give to Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 for picture quality and AF? What about Sigma 300mm f2.8? 2 of my friends bought 120-300mm f2.8 but weren't happy with the outcome even after sending it to sigma for calibration and ended up buying canon prime. So I am looking forward to people's opinions who own this lens. Ok, I am going to start this with my thoughts and why I have both of these lenses. I need the zoom more for baseball, hockey, and Volleyball where I can't move around as much and the zoom is very very handy, and the added reach of the 300 2.8 zoom is a big plus in poor lighting. The sigma 300 prime IMO is a better lens! period. I really enjoyed shooting with it, and my keeper rate was much higher. In my hands the Sigma 300 f2.8 acted more like the Canon 300 f2.8 then the zoom did! With the zoom the images were not as sharp, and the AF was not as fast and accurate. The zoom is not bad! but not as good as the prime. The Sigma prime 300 is as close to the Canon as you can get, it was fun shooting with this lens knowing I was getting the shot, and not worried about if I got the shot or not. "I hate that feeling" The prime is also a lot easier to hand hold, it is shorter than the zoom and weighs less than the 120-300 and Canon 300, when I first opened the box to take this lens out, I was surprised at how small it was. With the lens hood on I have it attached to my 40D with BG, and it fits in my LowPro Nature trekker II bag. If you give the Canon a 10, then I would give the Sigma at least a 9 The canon IMO is a tad, and I mean a tad sharper, the AF may be slightly faster but I did not have the canon in hand to compare and from what I remember, it was too close to call. The Canon was also a little more contrasty, but this is an easy fix in PP. Even when I had the Canon I never used the IS, so it is a non issue with me. I would give the Sigma 120-300 a 7. Again, I am not saying the zoom is bad, but I have to put more into the images to get theme to where the prime is, and they are still not equal. The 120-300 images were not as sharp, required even more contrast, and color. The AF speed of the zoom was close to the prime, but not equal, but when you needed to track a subject the prime was noticabley better. and also when using a 1.4X tc, the zoom boken is not as pleasing where the prime is still silky smooth, and without the TC on the Prime is still a tad better. Hope this helps. Paul. Mar 17, 2008 at 03:55 PM

Grieverlust Offline Buy and Sell: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime The last Sigma 300 2.8 I owned had some focus issues but this post gives me hope as well. I am still pretty turned off by the whole experience so I think i am going to go for the Canon instead. Glad to hear this lens is working well for you Mar 17, 2008 at 04:19 PM

Ayden Nathan Offline Image Upload: Off Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime All comparison's aside, and even though I don't own either zoom or prime lens there is no question when my budget and success grows to some degree in my photography there is no doubt I will be looking to Sigma for either the 120-300mm or 300mm. For Nikon users like me the price difference for a Nikon prime far outweighs IQ differences I could get w/ Sigma, also neither Nikon or Cannon make a 2.8 zoom in the 100-300mm range nor offer it in a price range reachable by smaller photogs like me. I'm know I'm still green but for now cost savings versus IQ for Nikon users speak louder that what I can do in PS if needed. Just my thoughts. Paul, Your LAX shots are awesome and I would doubt that anyone w/ a real prime will show a noticeably better image than what you are capturing w/ the Sigma. I think for the most part is how one uses and operates their equipment makes an even greater significance. I mean if you gave me your camera and gear at my stage of photography I doubt I could match your vision, shot anticipation, see a play happen, know when to shoot through a play as close to as good as you. I'm learning that there are so many different variables to consider in sports photography and that gear is only a part of the equation to making amazing images. Mar 17, 2008 at 05:33 PM

Ted ellis Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Paul a strong series. I like them. Interesting you switched from the Canon prime to the sigma prime. I did it the other way around and found the 2.8f IS to handle a TC better, focus faster and the overall quality to be better. Ted . Mar 17, 2008 at 05:53 PM

pnorth Offline Image Upload: On Lax with Sigma 300 2.8 prime Thanks Ayden, Thanks for the kind words, and complement. I have always said that your gear will only get you so far, the rest is up to you! and I know that I still have a lot to learn. As far as gear goes, I can afford to get the Canon 300 2.8 prime, but to be honest, why should I? what is it really getting me?? I keep asking myself that, and can't come up with a valid reason why I should own the Canon other than it is a canon! If I shot Nature I guess I could make the argument I need the IS, but I use the 300 for sports. Mar 17, 2008 at 05:55 PM

	FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Image Upload 1 2 end