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....Show more →
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I totally agree Paul. I don't know if you've seen Paul Alesse's amazing work, but there's got to be a good reason why he still keeps the 120-300/2.8 on his gear list even though he has all the Cannon primes at his disposal and many know how fast he can switch lenses if he ever needed to.
Hey Ted. Well, on the 1.3 crop body the 400 2.8 was great! maybe a tad too long for some things, but for field sports it was great! when I started to use the 1.6 crop of the 40D the 400 was really too long! I sold that and picked up the 120-300, and then the 300 Sigma prime. I agree with you that the Canon prime is sharper than the 120-300, but compared to the Sigma 300 f2.8 it is closer than I thought it would be. And with the 1.4x tc on the Sigma it doesn't seem to slow down at all, where there is a slight slow down in AF speed with the canon. No doubt, the canon primes are as sharp as it gets, and AF a hair faster with out the TC on, but I would say they are $300 sharper and faster, not $1400 sharper, and faster
Ayden Nathan wrote:
I totally agree Paul. I don't know if you've seen Paul Alesse's amazing work, but there's got to be a good reason why he still keeps the 120-300/2.8 on his gear list even though he has all the Cannon primes at his disposal and many know how fast he can switch lenses if he ever needed to.
Paul Alesse?? who is that
Sure I know Paul, I consider him a friend, and someone who is always willing to help. He is also one very talented photographer. Paul and I joke that we are going to run into each other on a field somewhere because we both live within 10 miles of each other, but that is yet to happen!! maybe this year who knows.
pnorth wrote:
Hey Ted. Well, on the 1.3 crop body the 400 2.8 was great! maybe a tad too long for some things, but for field sports it was great! ............................................................... but I would say they are $300 sharper and faster, not $1400 sharper, and faster
Paul not questioning your experience only injecting mine. Maybe I had a slug sigma 300 prime, I did buy it used.
