adam613
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #7 · 70-200mm F2.8 or 100-300mm F4? | |
I have the Sigma 100-300 f/4, and I've rented a few copies of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The autofocus speed is similar...the Canon tends to hunt less frequently in low light, which I suspect is due to the larger aperture. Also, the Sigma has the usual Sigma focus accuracy issues...it was horrible on my 20D, but now I have a 40D and it's fine. Both lenses have similar sharpness wide-open...contrast edge goes to Canon, but nothing you can't fix in post-processing.
The difference really is how frequently you need what focal length. I almost always need 300mm and occasionally 400mm, and I very rarely take action shots in low light, so the 100-300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC was a no-brainer. If you don't frequently need the 200-300 range, the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you an extra stop (which makes a HUGE difference for sports), and you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 280mm at f/4 when necessary.
I don't use a tripod for action shots (mostly airplanes, but I've shot a couple of company softball games on it)...it's fine if you can get good shutter speeds. Definitely handholdable weight. I actually take the tripod collar off most of the time...I only put it on when I'm using the lens for night landscape shots (when, obviously, I'm on a tripod). Obvious advantage to Canon if you get the IS version, but that may or may not be in your budget.
Also, don't buy the Sigma new...B&H wanted $1100 last time I checked, but I got mine (a non-DG) used for $625 on B&S...
The 100-300 is awesome for what I do with it, but it's not Canon so there are certainly trade-offs.
|
