Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2008 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

Fred Deutsch
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I've been fooling around with the idea of purchasing the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give me additional reach over my 70-200/2.8. Can anyone that's used both lenses give me comparitive feedback on the quality of images they produce? Though I love my 70-200, I wondering if I would realisitically continue to use it if I purchased the Sigma 120-300. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

Jul 20, 2008 at 06:21 PM

MrMet388
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I currently own both of aforementioned lenses. Both have their advantages, the 70-200 is lighter than the 120-300(trust me after carrying it all day long), the 120-300 is almost as sharp in the same range as my 70-200 (YMMV). The main question is what are you going to shoot? I mostly shoot sports and the 120-300 served its purpose for a time, I had to upgrade to the 300 2.8 due to the fact that the 120-300 would hunt too much for my taste (even on the 1 series). Would it replace my 70-200, No but complement it Yes.

Hope it helps

Jul 21, 2008 at 02:42 AM

coppertop
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a wonderful lens but as MrMet points out, it's heavy. The 70-200mm f2.8 is another really good lens but much lighter. I think if you get the 120-300mm you will still use the 70-200mm simply because of the wieght issue.

While it's possible to shoot with the 120-300mm without support for short periods, you really need a monopod or tripod. This may restrict your movements while the lighter 70-200mm can easily be shot without support and provide more mobility.

As far as image quality goes.... I'd say the Canon is sharper but the Sigma can hold its own weight. AF performance goes to Canon as well but I've yet to experience the hunting MrMet has.

I don't think you'll be dissappointed in the 120-300 but as has been said, I don't think it will replace you 70-200mm but instead compliment it.

Jul 21, 2008 at 03:26 AM

chez
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

When I got the 120-300, I sold my 70-200 2.8 and got a 70-200 f4 IS. In my opinion, the F4IS along with the 120-300 make a great pair. If I need the extra reach or the faster speed, I reach for the Sigma, otherwise I got myself a very light portable good range zoom in the 70-200 F4.

Jul 21, 2008 at 03:49 AM

bobbyz
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I have both, 120-300mm f2.8 is more suited to outdoor sports where 300mm and ability to zoom comes in handy. Weight is nfot an issue as you will be using a monopod. If you using 70-200mm f2.8 alone, even then having monopod is nice.

BTW - I will be selling my 120-300mm as I am going to upgrade to canon 300mm f2.8 IS prime.

Jul 21, 2008 at 04:13 AM

Jayem1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I have used 70-200/IS with 1.4x TC. The result is very good. I also had the 120-300, it's much heavier. Handholding it is not practical. I find 300/2.8 IS which is now I have is easier handheld.

Jul 21, 2008 at 04:20 AM

turbodude
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

i use teh 50-150 2.8 and the 120-300 2.8, i think this is the perfect combo.

Jul 21, 2008 at 06:21 AM

Jimbobp
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I had the 120-300 and the 70-200 F2.8 IS together for a few years. When using the 120-300 on a tripod it was sharper than the 70-200. Handheld, well.. it sucked so I sold it and bought a 300 F2.8 L IS which I can handhold for a bit. My comments on the quality, I loved the lens and it was indeed as sharp as the 70-200 L. It seemed to take a bit more contrast boost in post processing though. As long as I had it supported it was fine. I also never noticed a focusing issue at 300 as others had. I would buy it again if I had a need for it.

Jul 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM

mt-m
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

My 120-300 2.8 was sharper and had better contrast than my 70-200 2.8 IS, across the zoom range. The disadvantages were less than perfect consistency of focusing in AI Servo, very stiff zoom ring, shorter focal length than indicated and not being parfocal (it changes focus when zooming)

As mentioned by others, it is heavy (front heavy as well) and difficult to handhold. I agree with Jayem1, 300 2.8 IS is much easier to handhold...

Jul 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Fred Deutsch
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I checks B&H for a quick spec comparison for cost, weight and size:

Canon 300 2.8 lists at $4100, 6 lbs and 5"x10"
Canon 70-200 2.8 lists at $1700, 3.5 lbs and 3.5"x7.5" (my current lens)
Sigma 120-300 2.8 lists at $2700, 5.7 lbs and 4.5"x10.5"

So I see the 120-300 is a good deal heavier than my 70-200, and is similiar in weight and size to the 300 2.8. I find it interesting that several have commented that they've upgraded or are planning to upgrade from the 120-300 to the 300 prime. Any comments "why?" What did you perceive inadequate on the 120-300? Obviously a prime is a prime is a prime, but what made you spend the extra bucks for it when you already had a very lice lens with a reach of 300mm? Comments will help me decide if I should continue saving for the prime, or consider making the 120-300 purchase.

Thanks for sharing.

Jul 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM

mt-m
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

My reasons for 120-300 -> 300 2.8 IS:

- IS!
- much better balanced handheld
- actual 300mm focal length vs about 280mm of 120-300
- better image quality (much better when used with teleconverters, especially 2x)
- AF consistency (and I think my 120-300 performed significantly above average for that lens. Lots of unhappy reports...)

In the end, I would only recommend the 120-300 fin 2 cases:

1. You absolutely have to have a fast zoom in this range
2. You have firmly decided that 300mm 2.8 IS is simply not practical for your needs and are seeking a "budget" solution

Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Jul 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM

bobbyz
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I think + for 120-300mm:

1. Cost
2. Zoom range

Nobody has a lens with that kind of range and price is nice thought it has gone up in recent years.

Edit - With Sigma you may have to send in your lens/body to Sigma for calibration.

But persoanlly I think 300mm f2.8 IS is different league just like 400mm f2.8 IS, and 500/600mm f4 IS primes. Some will disagree but this is just my opinion.

Edited by bobbyz on Jul 21, 2008 at 06:27 AM GMT

Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 02:27 PM

Jul 21, 2008 at 02:04 PM

bobbyz
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

One more thing, if you shooting with 300mm/400mm f2.8 you need another body with 70-200mm f2.8. With Sigma you can get by with only 1 body.

Jul 21, 2008 at 02:05 PM

jetmutant
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

I have all three

and each is great for something but comparitively the Canon 300 2.8 focus is just a micro second faster than the Sigma in low light situations making the difference sometimes between a good sellable shot and a great sellable shot, things that really help (especially after my motorcycle accident) the Sigma is the zoom ability when you can't move or have no room to move this feature is absoloutly worth it. Sharpness? the Canon 300 and 70-200 deserve the reputation...so sharp they wake your eyes bleed...The Sigma is no slouch in this area either it will also amaze you but not quite as often as the Canon, I think just because of the focus speed. all of mine are used with 1D MKIIn's or 1Ds MKII (for a reference of camera AF ability) The weight issue does not bother me & I always shoot hand held, I find a monopod too restrictive, the wife has to use the monopod and gets great results with. I don't think the 70-200 2.8 is heavy at all (the 24-70 feels heavier...) is awesome and for what I use it for works flawlessly but I don't think it ranks in this comparison...

Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 02:12 PM

Jul 21, 2008 at 02:12 PM

RikWriter
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

bobbyz wrote:
But persoanlly I think 300mm f2.8 IS is different league just like 400mm f2.8 IS, and 500/600mm f4 IS primes. Some will disagree but this is just my opinion.

The ones who would disagree are wrong. The 300 is an incredible lens.

Jul 21, 2008 at 04:45 PM

coppertop
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

The Canon 300mm f2.8L IS is an incredible lens both in performance and price. Price being the variable that brings the 120-300mm to light and fortunately, it to is an incredible lens.

I have toiled with the idea of selling the 120-300mm for the 300mm but it always seems a) too far out of budget or b) something else comes up.

Jul 21, 2008 at 05:27 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

Personally I would not consider such a lens as it has no OS. I use my tripod only seldom and the IS in my 70-200/2.8 IS saved me more shots than I can remember. I'd rather put a 1.4X TC on it and lose a stop than to be "chained" to a tripod.

If Sigma will put OS in the 120-300/2.8 and 150/2.8 (and keep the IQ) I will replace my 100/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS with them in no time.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jul 21, 2008 at 07:59 PM

jimmy462
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

Fred Deutsch wrote:
I've been fooling around with the idea of purchasing the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give me additional reach over my 70-200/2.8. Can anyone that's used both lenses give me comparitive feedback on the quality of images they produce? Though I love my 70-200, I wondering if I would realisitically continue to use it if I purchased the Sigma 120-300. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

Hi Fred,

I can offer you no comparative with a 70-200mm, nor can I offer you any comparative with either a Canon or Sigma 300mm f/2.8 prime. What I do offer you is my assessment of my Sigma 120-300mm (which I picked up, lightly used, less-than-a-year-old with warranty card, for $2k even). And, I love this lens. It is crispy-crisp, fast to focus, and practically silent...so fast and silent that sometimes it trips me up where I don't realize that it's already done its thing and it's waiting for me to take the shot!

Up until I gotten this lens I had often heard about how some lenses delivered "creamy-smooth bokeh" but I really wasn't sure what that meant, nor was I certain that any of my existing lenses were delivering the goods. On my first outing with this lens I began to capture images of a black-capped chickadee feeding on the fuzzy seeds of a cattail plant about 15-or-so-feet from where I was standing...when I looked at the screen on my 30D I was amazed at the velvety golden glow cast by the dried grasses of early springtime in the background. When I got the images up on my Mac later that day and saw all the fine feather detail of that bird, the color and detail in its Iris and the intricacies of the cattail fuzz and, then, that amazingly smooth background glow...I let out a laugh of delight! My Sigma 80-400mm OS instantly became my knock-around work truck lens and the 120-300mm took its place as my choice lens for my nature walks when I'm looking to create my best images!

Now, this lens does have some heft to it and I use it mostly balanced on a Neotec monopod with a 322RC trigger ball head to which I attached a Manfrotto 357 quick release balancing slide plate assembly. I do, however, take it out for handheld outdoors shooting as well (I'm 6-foot even and 215Lbs.) and I do feel like I've gotten a good workout when I'm done...which is good!

I find the lens handles my Sigma 1.4x TC nicely without an objectionable hit (for my tastes) in IQ (the monopod or tripod really helps here). The 2X TC is another matter and I'll reserve judgment until I've spent sometime using that configuration on a tripod, which would be required in my opinion.

I enjoy the fact that the lens is a zoom as I do like to take the time to frame my shots and where I go wandering sometimes foot-zooming is just impractical. I give this lens a hearty recommendation to anyone considering it!

Well, that's what worked for me, I hope you found some of this helpful. Best of luck with your research!

Peace,
Jimmy G

Jul 21, 2008 at 08:41 PM

skibum5
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

Jul 21, 2008 at 09:24 PM

skibum5
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Cannon 70-200 v Sigma 120-300

Fred Deutsch wrote:
I checks B&H for a quick spec comparison for cost, weight and size:

Canon 300 2.8 lists at $4100, 6 lbs and 5"x10"
Canon 70-200 2.8 lists at $1700, 3.5 lbs and 3.5"x7.5" (my current lens)
Sigma 120-300 2.8 lists at $2700, 5.7 lbs and 4.5"x10.5"

So I see the 120-300 is a good deal heavier than my 70-200, and is similiar in weight and size to the 300 2.8. I find it interesting that several have commented that they've upgraded or are planning to upgrade from the 120-300 to the 300 prime. Any comments "why?" What did you perceive inadequate on the 120-300? Obviously a prime is a prime is a prime, but what made you spend the extra bucks for it when you already had a very lice lens with a reach of 300mm? Comments will help me decide if I should continue saving for the prime, or consider making the 120-300 purchase.

Thanks for sharing.

I found the Canon 300 2.8 IS to be:

a little bit easier to handhold for whatever reason (also the sigma was a little tricky to zoom while handholding, using it fixed it was easier)

the prime is for sure sharper and more contrasty wide open and more resistant to flare and has less CA of any type (basically 100% resistant to all types unless you use a TC with it and then you will get some lateral CA)

very importantly the AF on the prime is not only faster but more accurate and precise, which are very important for the typical usage of these things. The sigma I had access too was annoying in this respect.

it handles TCs much better in all ways.

IS was a total lifesaver on safari!! if virtually never used for sports except for a few sideline and stands pics and a very few rare action shots under the most extreme and marginal of conditions.

f/2.8 vs about f/3
300mm vs about 280mm

I actually like the prime enough to rather have it than the zoom and the freedom that brings. You will miss shots and will get some things that just don't quite fit in frame and get upset by that from time to time, but you'll also get more in focus and all with perfect quality when that happens, and the prime is very useablt with the TC on for sports while the sigma starts getting low on contrast and really touchy AF. Also, in some ways being stuck with the prime forces you to shoot tight and really get in that groove (although last season I also had a 70-200 2.8 on a second body; i found that i had many more of my best shots from the prime than the 70-200 zoom).

Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 09:42 PM

Jul 21, 2008 at 09:32 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end