Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · lens input
  
 
dswilley
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · lens input


Ok I am sure I will get lots of feedback on this.
I have moved up from my t2i to a 7d WHOOOOOT
I shoot HS sports and wildlife.
I want to get a longer lens than I currently have.
I use my 70-200 2.8 is ver 1 and sometimes my 1.4tc ver ii
I need longer lens for both sports and wildlife.
I am on a somewhat limited budget.
The way I see it my choices are as follows
300 f4 is ( gives me decent light and IS)
300 f 2.8 non is (great glass and tc options) high cost
400 f 5.6 great iq and focus speed (limited to brighter days)
Possible sigma 300 f 2.8 ( not sure on iq on this lens)
Ok so what is the next reasonable step in lens progression? note that 300 2.8 IS is out of reach monitarily atm.



Oct 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM
RobDickinson
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · lens input


Can you get a sigma 120-300f2.8? Or 100-300f4?

I wouldnt use a 400/5.6 for sport.



Oct 16, 2012 at 01:02 AM
rebelshooter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · lens input


We are in the same boat.
I shoot a 7D and am shooting HS sports and wildlife with a 70-200 IS MkII.
I agree with Rob, don't shoot sports with a 400 5.6.
300 4.0 will not be a good option if the sports you shoot are football. Good length but you need 2.8.
I think you are looking at a 300 2.8 or as suggested, the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I hear it is a great lens, although a bit of a beast.
I think you really need 300 2.8, how you get it is up to your pocketbook.



Oct 16, 2012 at 01:24 AM
dswilley
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · lens input


Ok I think I may have talked myself off the ledge and away from a divorce by purchasing the 300 2.8 is Canon
So left on the table is 300 2.8 non is ( rougher shape) have one for about 2k
sigma used 120-300 2.8 should be able to pick one up lower 2k
canon 300 f4 is 1k>
what are your thoughts for football, lacrosse, and some birding and wildlife (eagles, hawks, and deer)



Oct 16, 2012 at 09:10 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · lens input


My thoughts are you are ignoring the other great choice for your budget: the 100-400L. Optically as good (maybe better IMO) as the 300 f/4L IS, much more versatile, has better IQ @ 400mm than the 300 + 1.4, has better AF speed than the 300 + 1.4, although not as good as the 400 f/5.6L.

I've owned 300 f/4L IS, and 400 f/5.6L as sold both after getting the 100-400L, although I do miss the super fast AF of the 400 f/5.6L.

100-400L is not great choice for sports, but for everything else it delivers IMO.

Best alternative for everything is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. It might be worth waiting for the new sport series version coming out, although you'll be up for around $3.5K, but it should address reliability issues and has distance limiters now for enhanced AF speed. Failing that carefully track down a current version of the 120-300 OS and prove to yourself it works as you'd like.



Oct 16, 2012 at 09:59 PM
oldrattler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · lens input


I shoot the Sigma 120 - 300 2.8 and really like it. Fast AF, Sharp images and great color.. I previously had the 100 - 300 F4 and is is good but much slower... Wife uses a Canon 300 2.8 IS and it is stellar... Rented the 400 2.8 IS and it is heavy and magnificent... Good luck...


Oct 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · lens input


I'd take a serious look at the Sigma 300 f/2.8. It's surprisingly small and light, amazingly so compared to the 120-300 f/2.8, and probably a bit more reliable. It's quite sharp, too, I think better than the 120-300, but certainly its equal.

It doesn't zoom well, of course, but I can handhold the 300 all day, while I can handhold the 120-300 for a minute or two.



Oct 17, 2012 at 02:03 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · lens input


dswilley wrote:
Ok I think I may have talked myself off the ledge and away from a divorce by purchasing the 300 2.8 is Canon
So left on the table is 300 2.8 non is ( rougher shape) have one for about 2k
sigma used 120-300 2.8 should be able to pick one up lower 2k
canon 300 f4 is 1k>
what are your thoughts for football, lacrosse, and some birding and wildlife (eagles, hawks, and deer)


the 300mm 2.8 is better for night time sports otherwise the 100-400 is good for daytime sports like lacrosse or wildlife /birding, etc.








Oct 17, 2012 at 09:36 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password