p.1 #1 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
I am in the market for a sports lens to cover U8 soccer and potentially basketball and baseball in the near future. I currently have a 5D III and a 70-200 II and notice that I am lacking on the long end. I've done my due diligence and researched reviews on both, and I am still at a loss as to which lens option is superior for my situation. Unfortunately, I can't have both.
I've read that the Sigma 120-300 sport lens lacks contrast and sharpness wide open, but stopped down it's an excellent performer. I've also read that the Sigma's autofocus is good, but not as good as the Canon. If this is the case, it would seem that the 70-200 II plus 1.4x would give almost identical performance. You obviously lose a stop of light and a small bit of autofocus speed, which, on paper, appears to minimize their differences. That with the added benefit of having a sharp, fast 70-200 leads me to believe the Canon is the better option. BUT, I'd love to hear from those that have both. Also, I'd love to hear further testimony from those that also have experience with the Sigma OS non sport lens, as another feasible option.
To throw an added wrench into the process, I've also considered passing on purchasing the converter, keeping the 70-200, and possibly adding the Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600 for field sports.
p.1 #2 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
I really like Sigma.
They have great lenses, but, alas, some poor (or even very poor) lenses as well.
If you own the magnificent 70-200 2.8IS II, you will be disappointed, not to say very disappointed, in the 150-500.
The tamron seems to be very good unless you plan to use it for BIF. Otherwise, it looks to be an excellent lens.
I own the 70-200 IS II and 120-300 OS S.
If I find the time, I can do some test shots during the weekend, under the same conditions, for you to access IQ.
Or look up some pics taken with it, I don't have many because I purchased it recently.
Regarding AF, it's quite good, but then again, not at the same level as the 70-200 II.
But take into consideration few zooms are... even canon's.
I also owned the non-S version but it was in nikon mount.
Don't know if that helps or not, at least AF wise it shouldn't because the reversed engineered algorithms are different and they might have done a better job on one side rather than the other.
The non-S in nikon mount had very fast AF but the tracking left a bit to be desired. And nikon's continuous AF is renowned for it's tracking abilities.
IQ should be the same (sigma claims same optics) and I have quite a few test shots I could share, including with a 1.4x tc.
Regarding the S version (in canon mount) AF tracking seems to be better, but I haven't done extended testing (or shooting) with it.
I shot a karate event a few days ago with it and it did as well (number of keepers) as my 70-200 II I had with me also, but that might not be the greatest of AF stress-tests since the plane of focus does not change all that much. Still, it was a very good performance.
I don't have much time right now to elaborate more.
Let me know if you want to know something more specific or have any request, I will come back here later and see with a little more time I will see what I can do to help.
I have to say its a cracking lens . The AF on mine is plenty fast and pretty accurate . the only slight foilble ive had with it is when shooting Moto GP with bikes comming straight on (at the apex of a corner) it could sometimes rack back to very close focus and sit there . but another prod of the AF button and it would go back to focus properly (of course missed shot by then)
I have to say if your trying to compare the BigSig with a 70-200 2.8 you may have a big shock . it may 'only' be a 100mm more but its a world of a lens size further up the scale . think more in terms of 500/4 size .
I used to think my 80-200L was a tad heavy and large . but a few hours with the bigsig and then using the 80-200 would seem like I was using a consumer 70-300 .
its heft is made worse by the fact its not well balanced in use , its very front heavy and you cant really get your supporting hand far enough down the lens cos that stops you bracing your elbow against your body .
after a few handheld sessions I resorted to a mono pod .
great lens , but it does have its downsides . but theres nothing like it
p.1 #5 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
keoni068 wrote:
I am in the market for a sports lens to cover U8 soccer and potentially basketball and baseball in the near future. I currently have a 5D III and a 70-200 II and notice that I am lacking on the long end. I've done my due diligence and researched reviews on both, and I am still at a loss as to which lens option is superior for my situation. Unfortunately, I can't have both.
I've read that the Sigma 120-300 sport lens lacks contrast and sharpness wide open, but stopped down it's an excellent performer. I've also read that the Sigma's autofocus is good, but not as good as the Canon. If this is the case, it would seem that the 70-200 II plus 1.4x would give almost identical performance. You obviously lose a stop of light and a small bit of autofocus speed, which, on paper, appears to minimize their differences. That with the added benefit of having a sharp, fast 70-200 leads me to believe the Canon is the better option. BUT, I'd love to hear from those that have both. Also, I'd love to hear further testimony from those that also have experience with the Sigma OS non sport lens, as another feasible option.
To throw an added wrench into the process, I've also considered passing on purchasing the converter, keeping the 70-200, and possibly adding the Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600 for field sports.
Sigma is a bit of a beast for basketball, if you build up you can hand hold it all game long even at more awkward basketball angles though, 70-200 would be a lot more comfortable though. Sigma seemed a bit awkward to zoom hand-held though. Simga also seems a bit long, even on FF, for basketball.
No doubt the sigma has better reach for field sports though (and even far basket).
I only used the older 120-300 version. It had a bit slower and also worse AF than the Canon 300 2.8 IS. Most people used the Canon given the choice of both despite losing zoom ability.
70-200 2.8 non-IS + 1.4xc TC wasn't the greatest IQ or AF for sports. The 70-200 II surely handles it better though. Never used the II with a TC though. I'd almost suspect the new sigma 120-300 might have a touch faster AF than even the 70-200 II+TC.
Vaguely I seem to recall that 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC was similar to bare 300 f/4 non-IS IQ and 300 f/4 + 1.4TC was similar to bare sigma 120-300 IQ The sigma, older version, was more of an f/3 280mm lens but I hear the newer version is more f/2.8 300mm, sure about the former, not sure about the latter.
If you shoot mostly day games for field sports why not keep the 70-200 II and add a used 300 f/4 non-US for $650ish, if you can manage an brand new outlay of money. I know you can't have both 70-200 II and sigma 120-300 OS but maybe you can have 70-200 II and 300 f/4 non-IS?? If you then I'd do that.
p.1 #8 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
I happen to have both the 70-200 MkII and the 120-300 sport, both a stellar wide open and handle the 1.4 and 2.0 MkIII TCs very well but I will stop down a little. Shoot Rugby and BIF regularly and the AF speed difference is minimal but the 120-300 can get tiring after awhile.
p.1 #11 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
jj_glos wrote:
Ian, what body were you shooting with? When I had mine I was using a 1D3 and thought it balanced nicely?
was using it on a 7D . I now have a 5D3 with a grip , its probably the only lens id feel a real need to use the gripo on (I dont like grips much) but even then I still think its uncomfortable .
I know I have short arms (and legs and body ) but to get a good hold of the lens I have to lay my hand way down the barrel towards the front which takes my elbow away from my body which makes it quite uncomfortable to use for any length of time .
its the longest and heaviest lens ive ever used (physical length not focal), so maybe if I used any of the big white class lenses id find it easier .
p.1 #13 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
OP, keep in mind there is a noticeable difference in weight between the two sigmas.
The original OS is already a heavy lens but certainly handholdable for an extended period of time.
The newer Sports version becomes can become a burden after a little while, depending on your physical abilities.
I have handholded it for quite some time (the before mentioned karate event) but it certainly wasn't a pleasant experience. A monopod would probably be a good suggestion, if that is your intendend use.
Also, on a side note, I'm pretty sure the 120-300 with a 1.4x tc is sharper (and has better colors and contrast) than the 150-500.
Later tonight, at home, I will look for some more pictures.
p.1 #14 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
fraga wrote:
OP, keep in mind there is a noticeable difference in weight between the two sigmas.
The original OS is already a heavy lens but certainly handholdable for an extended period of time.
The newer Sports version becomes can become a burden after a little while, depending on your physical abilities.
I have handholded it for quite some time (the before mentioned karate event) but it certainly wasn't a pleasant experience. A monopod would probably be a good suggestion, if that is your intendend use.
Also, on a side note, I'm pretty sure the 120-300 with a 1.4x tc is sharper (and has better colors and contrast) than the 150-500.
Later tonight, at home, I will look for some more pictures.
Fraga its interesting you say that about the weight of the 2 sigma OS's . I know the new S is heavier , but thought the only weight difference was due to the hood (which is pretty poor quality on the non S) ?
mind you thinking about it , even if the only difference is the hood weight (the new one is a metal hood isnt it ? ) then i guess thet extra weight slung uout on the front of quite a long lens is significant
p.1 #15 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
Yes, the new hood is metal, the previous was plastic.
The S version is 3.390 grs, the first model was 2950 grs.
I believe these figures do not include the hood.
I never owned both versions at the same time, but the newer one feels definitely heavier.
Regarding heft and build quality, it's definitely a substantial piece of metal and glass, and I don't think it leaves anything to be desired, even when compared to the finest L's.
The previous version was also very well built and felt very solid, with the exception of the buttons, which felt a little flimsy.
Well, not exactly flimsy but just a touch bellow the build quality standard of the rest of the lens.
The newer one is big white quality all over.
If only they used magnesium...
p.1 #16 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
keoni068 wrote:
I am in the market for a sports lens to cover U8 soccer and potentially basketball and baseball in the near future. I currently have a 5D III and a 70-200 II and notice that I am lacking on the long end. I've done my due diligence and researched reviews on both, and I am still at a loss as to which lens option is superior for my situation. Unfortunately, I can't have both.
I've read that the Sigma 120-300 sport lens lacks contrast and sharpness wide open, but stopped down it's an excellent performer. I've also read that the Sigma's autofocus is good, but not as good as the Canon. If this is the case, it would seem that the 70-200 II plus 1.4x would give almost identical performance. You obviously lose a stop of light and a small bit of autofocus speed, which, on paper, appears to minimize their differences. That with the added benefit of having a sharp, fast 70-200 leads me to believe the Canon is the better option. BUT, I'd love to hear from those that have both. Also, I'd love to hear further testimony from those that also have experience with the Sigma OS non sport lens, as another feasible option.
To throw an added wrench into the process, I've also considered passing on purchasing the converter, keeping the 70-200, and possibly adding the Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600 for field sports.
The Sigma 12-300 S is anything but soft and lacking in contrast wide open. In my, all be it limited experience, testing it side by side with my 70-200 ii on my 5D3 it was every bit the equal of the L wide open and stopped down and focused very speedily. It would be a great lens for your purposes. The price is a serious consideration though, it's obviously a lot more expensive than a 70-200 and 1.4 x tc. It's heavier than the 500mm f/4 ii as well! The Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 150-600 for field sports would be an error IMO. Slow apertures on the long end, and non sports oriented AF speed. Good luck
p.1 #17 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
I have the non-S version of the Sigma 120-300mm. I usually shoot wildlife but I have done a little sports shooting with it. These shots are all taken at F2.8.
These are cropped and resized for the web, but the original sharpness is pretty impressive too. From what I've read I've no doubt that the Canon 70-200mm MkII F2.8 is sharper. I guess whether that bothers you will depend on how deep you crop and how large you like to print.
As others have said the Sigma is heavy, I like to shoot it from a monopod which I have found to be very convenient for rugby. No idea if that is practical for the sports you mention.
p.1 #18 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
I thought seriously about this lens, but immediately I saw and put it on the camera, I started to look for lighter alternatives (e.g. Sigma 300/2.8). it is a really big lens and definitely not for casual use. It would be OK with a monopod, but I think you would really need its capabilities before you would take the plunge and buy it. So I think once you see and feel it you will know whether it might be for you. It's a very good lens, but I will stick with my 70-200 + TC and contemplate getting a 300 or even a 400mm for when I want that extra reach.
p.1 #19 · Sports Lens: Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport vs. Canon 70-200 II + 1.4x
Robin Smith wrote:
I thought seriously about this lens, but immediately I saw and put it on the camera, I started to look for lighter alternatives (e.g. Sigma 300/2.8). it is a really big lens and definitely not for casual use.
I had the Sig 300/2.8 HSM before I got the 120-300 . for a couple of weeks I had both together and other than size the 300 prime couldnt hold a candle to the 120-300 . the zoom is just so so much sharper .
The sigma, older version, was more of an f/3 280mm lens but I hear the newer version is more f/2.8 300mm, sure about the former, not sure about the latter.
) but to get a good hold of the lens I have to lay my hand way down the barrel towards the front which takes my elbow away from my body which makes it quite uncomfortable to use for any length of time .
