I'll add my .02 here. I have the Sigma 70-200 which has not been out of the bag much at all since I got the 120-300. My 70-200 is super sharp also. It's just that the 120-300 is that much sharper. Both of them rest on 1D bodies. I'll get a 400 2.8 is one day to compliment the set.
Try a 1.4 TCII on your 70-200 f/2.8 and you might just forget about getting the 120-300. it's a lot less expensive, less to carry and the results are quite nice.
At one time, I had the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8, Ef 300 f/2.8 and Sigma 120-300.
I sold the Sigma and kept the 2 Canons.
The Sigma 120-300 is a very sharp lens...maybe sharper than the EF 70-200 on stationary objects...but the AF on the Canon is much more reliable...by a great margin.
From my personal experience, the 70-200 with the Canon 1.4 teleconverter doesn't compare to the 120-300. The AF speed drops and image quality suffers. If you need a 300 f/2.8 lens with zoom capability, the Sigma is the only choice.
The Canon 300 f/2.8 is a much sharper and faster focusing lens than the Sigma but is $1,700 more expensive. I think it's well worth the price difference.
I made alot of money with the Sigma ( enough to help fund the purchase for the Canon 300 f/2.8) and learned to live with the AF problems...but after shooting with the Ef 300 f/2.8, the 120-300 was never used again.
Curious about something with the 300mm f2.8 lenses. Is the 300mm f2.8 non-IS as good a performer as the IS version? And would you prefer the non-IS 300 over the 120-300mm?
Curious about something with the 300mm f2.8 lenses. Is the 300mm f2.8 non-IS as good a performer as the IS version? And would you prefer the non-IS 300 over the 120-300mm?
I have had all 3 lens. I sold the 120-300 when I purchased a 300Prime(non IS)
Things I miss about the sigma.
The zoom, I still reach for the zoom ring on my 300 canon which of course isnt there.
Things I dont miss about the sigma
Its tempermental with Al servo focus. One day you cant miss the next time out it may seem you couldnt focus on the broad side of a barn. Technique is very important on this lens.
As to wether the non IS lens is as good as the IS lens. I used both and since I rarely shoot anything but field sports with mine. I didnt see IS as a needed expense. I found a wonderfully(like new) lens from KEH.com and havent looked back.
I also found that the 300 canon prime takes a 1.4 TC perfectly with no loss of IQ at just about any size I have printed(largest being 20x30) and the AF speed doesnt seem to be effected.
Lee brings up great points from experience doing this professionally. I brought up the TC idea figuring the OP might be a weekend warrior like me, shooting sports for amateur pleasure. In which case the image quality hit would not be a problem.
I shot fast moving objects only twice so far using 5D and 70-200 f/.2.8 L IS with 1.4 TC II and find the results come out reasonably well. Here's a handheld shot of a car at 280mm, zooming past my field of view at what I was told to be 160 mph:
"Lee brings up great points from experience doing this professionally. I brought up the TC idea figuring the OP might be a weekend warrior like me, shooting sports for amateur pleasure. In which case the image quality hit would not be a problem."
Yea, that describes me pretty well . . . weekend warrior. Some men drink, some men smoke, others sleep around. My vice is photography . . . doin it soley the love of doin it. I guess it could be worse.
Edited by Fred Deutsch on Jul 23, 2008 at 03:37 AM GMT
Can anyone comment about the importance of the IS fuinction on the Canon 300 2.8? Obviously the used non-IS version is less costly. How important do you find the function? Worth the add'l cost?
The Sigma 120-300 is slooooooowwwwwwwwww focusing.
Was given the lens to try out for a week, the only way I could reliably use it was on manual or if it was high contrast.
Plus, what's up with the shorty lens hood? Does it even work? And why is it made in cast aluminium? Won't it be cheaper and lighter in plastic?
I use the 1.4x TC for my 70-200 2.8 sometimes, when I want to keep my equipment weight down. It may not have the best results according to the test, but it a great solution on the street.
If weight is not an issue I'll bring the 300 2.8, but if weight is really not an issue and I don't have to handhold, I'll bring my 400 2.8
Why own the 300 2.8? Because it probably the sharpest lens you'll ever use. And it's super sharp at 2.8.
Finally, regardless of any optical or build quality, why use Canon if you're not going to use the white lenses?
Who here doesn't look at the other guys on the photo line to see if they're using white lenses or have the nice red stripes? Like it or not, these two things are synonymous with being a pro.
Coppertop,
I owned the 300 2.8 non-IS and it was a seriously sharp lens and absolutely it's better than the 120-300.
I sold the non-IS for almost the same price I bought it for, and bought the 300 IS.
Be warned you will not be able to get parts from Canon for the non-IS since it's discontinued.
Any questions you may have about Canon Lenses, you should go to the following site and download Canon EF Lens Works III.
One other thing about why the IS on the 300, even at high shutter speeds I use the is as a focus aid when handholding. It helps me tremendously and I'm a firm believer in lens based IS due to this.
In my case, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200L IS f/2.8 are equal in image quality. And the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is better! It is indeed pretty heavy (compare to the 70-200), but it brings a lot more to the table. I also never experienced "slow" auto focus concerns (shooting fast-pitch softball). The biggest problem I am constantly having is that the two companies zoom in the opposite direction (rotation).. YMMV
Fred Deutsch wrote:
Can anyone comment about the importance of the IS fuinction on the Canon 300 2.8? Obviously the used non-IS version is less costly. How important do you find the function? Worth the add'l cost?
what do you want to do with it?
as I said above, I almost never use it for sports action, occasionally use it for sports stands or sidelines, but no big deal if I have it or not for the sports I've shot.
It was very, very useful when I had to shoot an orchestra as well as when I was on safari.
also when using liveview 10x zoom focusing without a sturdy tripod it shakes so much it's almost impossible unless you have IS on, it let me exactlingly plce the focus on some nigth shots over LA that I shot with the lens resting on roof of my car and some static shots in other places.
that said since I use it lots for sports, probably only 10% of my shots haveused IS so far, but some of them were priceless and I'll probbaly shoot more stuff neededing IS in the future than I have recently.
but again if it is to be used for action sports, the IS isn't really that big of a deal to worry abou tnot having.
Fred, I turned on the IS for my static shot of the race car front end lying on the ground. For the action shots, I turned it off. I used no camera support during the day's shooting. IS does come in handy; almost like having a second lens in the same focal length of the price difference of having it versus not having it. (as far as the 70-200 series goes).
