Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2015 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport

  
 
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Contemplating my next lens purchase and looking for input as to which would be a better investment
I mostly do wildlife photography as well as a little bit of Astrophotography

Everything I hear and read tells me the Canon lens is a superb piece and is significantly less money than the Sigma
What causes me to even debate is wondering if the longer reach of the Sigma would trump the superior optical quality of the Canon for the shooting wildlife that represents the majority of my usage.

I would appreciate any thoughts wildlife photographers (or others) with some experience with either of these lenses, preferably both, could offer



Mar 13, 2015 at 02:03 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


I have the earlier Non S version of the sigma as well as a very sharp 80-200L . the sigma is a very sharp lens (id put it at or near canon mk2 levels) but I don't think they can be considered in the same niche .

If you ever intend to use the lens as a walk around then the sigma falls out of the niche . its just so much bigger and heavier (and i do mean BIGGER and HEAVIER !!! ) that its not something I will consider using unless I know full well its going to be used all the time and I have a monopod with me .


also for wildlife both lenses will be too short . look more to 400mm even on a crop body



Mar 13, 2015 at 02:16 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Thanks Ian

I would love to go to a Canon 400mm (or longer) but it is something that is just not practical for me from a cost perspective. I do have a 150-500mm Sigma that I am pretty happy with when shooting stationary targets, but am looking to add a faster lens to better capture action shots

Appreciate your thoughts



Mar 13, 2015 at 02:26 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


then id seriously consider hiring the sig first . its not just its size that makes it an issue its also very front heavy . I find the balance point where I'd want to comfortably cradle it its past where I can tuck my elbow into my body to brace the weight . which makes it very tiring to hand hold .
Maybe if you have much longer arms than me it wouldn't be such an issue (although a 6ft friend of mine said much the same thing)


Funny thing is when ever this lens gets mentioned I seem to rag on it big time . thing is I love it and don't think Id give it up (it takes a 2x very well so I can use it as a decent 600mm) . its just that its not an alternative to a more normal tele zoom .
after using it for a while it makes my 80-200 (similar in bulk to the 70-200 mk2) seem like a kit tele lens



Mar 13, 2015 at 02:37 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


It doesn't seem to me like you are ragging on it, more like offering a valid cautionary warning about its weight which is significant. I'm sure that there have been many who bought this lens only to leave it at home most of the time because of its size and weight


Mar 13, 2015 at 02:45 AM
kabraxcis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Canon 100-400, 100-400v2, 400/5.6, Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 are all in the same or cheaper price zone


Mar 13, 2015 at 03:08 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Yes they are, but none of those offer the 2.8 aperture and I doubt if any of the lenses you cite would be much improvement over the 150-500 5.6 Sigma I already have ... not enough improvement to justify the expenditure anyways

Thanks for your input



Mar 13, 2015 at 03:13 AM
kabraxcis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


You need a better body, not a 400/2.8
get a 1d4 or 7d2 rather than a shorter f2.8 lens unless your wildlife fills the frame at 300mm



Mar 13, 2015 at 04:13 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


I currently own both.

IQ wise, they are close.
The edge goes to the canon (as expected, since it's so good it actually beats some primes), but it is so close that I would say that it's almost irrelevant.

As Ian said, the weight difference is noticeable.
Does it matter?
Well, it all depends on the individual. Only you can tell.
It depends on your physique. And, of course, if you are willing to deal with bigger weight.
It can be tiresome after awhile, but that's not a problem for me. Because, for me, it's worth it. But this is my personal opinion, of course. OMMV. I'm 37 and I go to the gym.
When I get older, I might have a different opinion.
With this in mind, my advice is the same as Ian's: rent one if you can and evaluate for yourself if you are willing to deal with the weight or not. It's a very personal thing.

You mentioned you want to shoot at 400mm.
With that purpose in mind and between the two, I would choose the sigma.
I own a 1.4x tc and a 2.0x tc and for 400mm, I would go with the sigma + 1.4tc.
For several reasons, the most important being that you have a full stop advantage over the other choice.

I should mention two things: sigma's OS and HSM are good, or very good.
But canon's 70-200 2.8IS II IS and USM are the best in the business.
The Sigma focuses fast, but while the canon focuses faster, the biggest differentiation lies in tracking. The canon is amazing. The sigma struggles a little more under very demanding situations (as in a subject moving fast in your direction). I have my personal theory about this: I believe it is because sigma reverse engineers canon's AF algorithms. The HSM unit is fast in itself (one shot AF is very fast and accurate), but the lens seems to talk in a different language than the camera, so there has to be a translation between the two as they "talk" to each other in AI-Servo, so sometimes you notice what seems to be a slight hesitation and not actually slow AF per se. In AI-Servo there is a lot of constant calculations going on, so you notice it there but not in one shot mode. A canon body and canon lens speak the same language, so there is no need for translation. Sorry about the bad analogy, hope you understand what I meant.
The addition of a 1.4x TC makes this a little worse.

Keep in mind that this issue (or to better put it, the severity of the issue) is dependent on the subjects behavior. As an example, lately I have been shooting a lot of karate events and between the two lenses, I notice no difference in terms of keepers. (For reference, I should mention that I use a 5DMIII, as I can't vouch for the same results with lesser AF systems).
But under other circumstances (subject moving fast towards you like a car or, even worse, a motorcycle) the difference will be there.
However, you can customize the lens in nearly most conceivable ways with the dock, including most AF parameters, so you can mitigate this issue somewhat (increasing tracking speed).

Also, as Ian as pointed out, you can put a 2.0x tc on the sigma and get a very respectable 600mm f5.6, which is something that should be considered. Comparing this with the canon choice, it's 200mm more for the same aperture. That's a lot!
Just don't expect any miracles in AI-Servo.
I have a friend who uses my previous non-S version with a 2.0x tc to shoot surf and he gets good results, both in terms of IQ and keepers.

Hope this helps.
Any specific questions, just shoot away.

P.S.
While some people will tell you to get the specific focal length you want (400mm) and that is a perfectly good point, I agree with your reasoning: you remove the TC and you get the 2.8 aperture.



Mar 13, 2015 at 05:42 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Thank you very much fraga, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for )



Mar 13, 2015 at 09:52 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


I'll second whatFraga was saying about AFspeed and tracking. He has the later 'S' version while mine is the older Non S .
I find mine to be pretty quick if the target and lens focus distance is quite close (I tend to shoot car/bike raceing so pre focusing on a known point isnt an issue) but if it decides it wants to hunt then it isnt as fast a canon USM and I find it may give up (although thats not often) . the 's' version has the focus limiter which should help this .
and tracking I find in a 2-3 second burst(shooting a 5D3 so 12 - 18 frames) there can be a section in the middle thats not even in the ball park (but eiether side are dead on) .

Its something I learn to live with . the alternatives that would be more reliable are much more £££.

I'll alos add another thing . at close range its a fair bit short of 300mm . its MFD is 2.5m and the magnification calculates its 225mm at MFD . the 70-200 is 185 (i think off the top of my head) and has probably gained most of that back by 2.5m distance . so if you compared the FOV at 2.5m you probably wont see a big difference .
But you can gain that back . I use a 13mm Tube at short distances which allows me to focus out to about 5m (just a tad over) . testing the same target at 5m away with and without the tube shows a marked difference .

again its another thing you just need to be aware of .



Mar 13, 2015 at 10:52 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Thanks again Ian for the very useful information. Really appreciate it!


Mar 13, 2015 at 05:21 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


What type of wildlife are you shooting?

Both of these lenses seem like they are going to need TCs to get any significant reach for wildlife. As soon as you start adding TCs you start losing your f/2.8 aperture and could then be better off with a 100-400II. I have the 70-200II and I have used it for wildlife but only in places like Antarctica where the wildlife is silly tame. I have also used it with a 2xTC but the 100-400II is better for AF speed and IQ. I think if you can handle the weight the Sigma is a better lens for wildlife just for the extra 100mm and it is said to take TCs very well. I've never used it but others that have, have already given some good feedback.



Mar 13, 2015 at 06:38 PM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Mostly birds, I live on Shuswap Lk and the waterfowl is abundant as well as a good population of eagle, osprey and hawks
I had considered the new 100-400Canon but am thinking that I can cover more bases in having a fast lens that to all accounts is quite serviceable with a teleconverter giving me the reach as well as the advantages of the large aperture for when reach isn't so important. This has me looking at the two 2.8 lenses

I guess I am trying to get the most flexibility out of the expenditure. Ideally I would fill my bag with a variety of fast primes, but until I win a lottery I have to try to get the most bang for my buck

Thanks for your thoughts



Mar 13, 2015 at 07:12 PM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Since Ian mentioned focus breathing, I would like to add one thing that might be important or not, depending on you.
The sigma is said to not be an actual 2.8 lens.
More like 3.2, that is to say, one third of a stop slower optically.
If you look at the front element and compare it to a canon or nikon 300mm 2.8 prime, it is smaller.
Therefore the lens is not 300mm, 2.8 or, more likely, both.
It is definitely not 300mm at MFD. That is a given. But, well, AFAIK, no zoom lens reaches the advertised FL at MFD, so that is hardly a surprise. But the aperture should be there and I believe it's not, even at infinity (yes, some lenses also "lose" aperture at close to or at MFD).

Regarding the canon focus breathing, I was under the impression that it was more severe than the mere 15mm loss (185mm) Ian mentioned.
Nothing ridiculous as nikkor's version or sigma's 70-200 too, but still more than 15mm.
But I could be wrong.

Also, I realize it has already been mentioned and you dismissed the option, but the new 150-600 Sport should be a considerable improvement over your current 150-500. Selling it would help fund the new lens and you would get a native 600mm.
Of course, no 2.8...

I love fast glass, I will be the first to say.
For several reasons, like better IQ (generally speaking), better subject isolation, more SS, allowing lower ISO, faster and more precise AF (in some or most cases), etc.
But that sigma 150-600 sport looks awfully atractive...

But yeah, in the end 2.8 is 2.8.

Good luck with your decision.
Keep us updated and when you get it post some pics taken with it when you find the time.



Mar 14, 2015 at 03:09 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


I must admit the 150-600 Sport has crossed my mind. I have a 18-35 Art and if the 150-600 Sport matches its build and image quality it would certainly be a big improvement over my 150-500 .... but I hesitate because I think in the end I will find myself with the same frustration, namely that in anything other than bright sunlight I am often disappointed with my results.

I think my final decision will ultimately come after I've had a chance to rent one and spend a day or two with it
Thanks again for your thoughts



Mar 14, 2015 at 04:43 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


D.Hussey wrote:
in anything other than bright sunlight I am often disappointed with my results.



That could be considered a given with any f6.3 lens.
And with most f5.6 lenses too.
Even if they provide good results in very good light, when light levels start to fall, yes, in my experience IQ goes down the drain.
And no, it's not just a shutter speed issue.
So I get what you are saying.
Perhaps your initial idea of a shorter f2.8 lens with the occasional TC in good light could very well be your best option.



Mar 14, 2015 at 04:19 PM
Alex Phan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


D.Hussey wrote:
I think my final decision will ultimately come after I've had a chance to rent one and spend a day or two with it

Thanks again for your thoughts


smart choice. You're the one that spend that money, your hard earn money. Don't let us make that decision for you.

btw, i own both lenses too. Zoom lens never mean to be for wildlife shooting. Prime is the best way to go.


Mar 14, 2015 at 05:38 PM
mmurph
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


They are both great lenses!

I have the Canon 70-200 II and the 24-70 II. I consider both absolutely essential for a pro to have in a basic kit. I absolutely need my Canon 70-200 II for event work.

I also had the Sigma 120-300 Sport. I have some physical limitations (disability) and it was just too much for me physically.

I did love it for exactly the reason that you mention - the 2.8 aperture. It was great to be able to go from a 2x to a 1.4x to the bare lens at dusk as the light was fading. I love good, fast glass that you can shoot wide open.

The ability to get to 600 mm makes the Sigma much more useful for wildlife than the 70-200.

It is also much bigger and heavier than the 70-200. I shot it on a gimbal all of the time and that made it pretty usable. Unfortunately I couldn't really hike/walk with it, again because of my own limitations.

You can find the Sport used now for about $2,500, so it isnt that much more than the Canon 100-400 II and the Sigma 150-600 Sport.

I am thinking about the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, I had that on preorder. That might be a good upgrade from your Sigma 150-500. It is difficult to decide on a kit when you can't afford/ justify the Canon 300 2.8 and similar.

Good luck with the Sigma, I think that it certainly makes more sense for wildlife than the Canon 70-200 if you don't need the 70-200 for other work.



Mar 14, 2015 at 07:46 PM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II - vs - Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport


Thanks Murph

Really appreciate your input, the thoughts of people who have used the Sigma is valued. So far it is only the weight of this brute that keeps the debate alive in my mind.

"....great to be able to go from a 2x to a 1.4x to the bare lens at dusk as the light was fading...." <---- This is precisely the real appeal of this lens to me, I'm not a pro nor am I wealthy so as much as it would be nice I cannot afford to have an assortment of fast primes

Today I strapped a 2kilo weight to the foot of my 150-500 and will lug the extra mass around with me until I am sure whether or not I can live with the weight of this piece





Mar 14, 2015 at 08:19 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.