amandagillen Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
Hard to say. At 300mm, the Nikon is the better lens. Slightly sharper, better AF, takes TCs better. But it lacks the beautiful flexibility that the 120-300 affords you. So it really comes down to shooting style. (Yep, don't you have how every lens question is answered by the nebulous idea of "shooting style"? )
For baseball I'd go for the 300 prime hands down. If they're night games, I might even go for the 400mm f2.8 D, since baseball needs a lot of reach. But for football, I'd go for the Sigma. (This is assuming you use one lens and one body - if you have multiple bodies I'll discuss other options in a minute.) With football you often have players running towards you, and being able to zoom out to 120mm and capture the touchdown while you're in the end zone is invaluable. It also just gives you a lot more framing choices in general, unlike in baseball where you're often at 300mm and still cropping. Though I have much more experience shooting football than baseball, so others would be better suited to discussing baseball.
If you have two bodies, you might be better off with a 70-200 f2.8 on one and a 300mm (or 400mm) on the other. More cumbersome, but gives you similar flexibility to the Sigma while giving the prime IQ at long range.
A few other things to keep in mind are the size of the lenses, and the cost. The Sigma is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikon, and you will feel this if you're hand-holding for a couple hours. Yet it's also less expensive, and your wallet will feel this a great deal as well.
Personally, I'd pick the Sigma. It's a beautiful lens that's truly versatile, even if it may fall slightly short of the top-end primes when it comes to IQ and AF. Emphasis on slightly. However, if you find yourself reach-limited at 300mm and end up using teleconverters more often than not, you might appreciate how well a prime lens takes them. So ultimately, I'd go for the 120-300 if you need under 300mm more than you need over 300mm, and the 300 prime if vice versa....Show more →
I would use one lens and one body. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I use currently. My son is centerfielder and catcher/pitcher so I could se adding a 400mm one day. Still though, football is his love. Those are the shots I want to be perfect. The other photographers on the field talk about missing great shots bc too close to them and they shoot with a 300mm ...I don't wanna be that person. I love the facial expressions and the reach and the laying out for TDs (son is a receiver) so I can't miss the shots in the red zone. Those are my favorites for true expressions. I have a Nikon D3300 now so I clearly need to ditch that camera. I can't afford a new big lens AND TWO bodies so I gotta pick one body and one lens for the moment. I was automatically assuming I would buy a 300mm and found one locally used for 2800 BUT then this forum kinda turned me onto the Sigma 120-300 which I never even knew existed. The more I read, and know my specific style, the more I am intrigued by it... and I could get a used one for 2800 (maybe less)
|