Hello Everybody. I'm new here, but have been a looong time lurker. This COULD go in sports also I suppose, but didn't want to double post, and seeing as I shoot with Canon stuff...I figured it would go well here.
I know that there has been quite a bit of talk recently about the Sigma 100-300/4. I really don't want to be the guy who is still kicking the horse thats dea..., well...you know... I've been thinking about this and researching this for the past few months (on this forum and the web in general)
BUT, I have been seriously considering one of these two lenses for quite a while. I shoot a variety of sports at a small D3 College in East Texas. We only have 4 football games at home this year, and they are all day games. I also shoot some basketball (which I use the 50/1.8) and baseball (and probably some soccer/softball)
Last year I used a 300/4 Tokina AT-X Pro. It was a decent lens...(I did get some amazing shots), but suffered from CA problems and EXTREMELY slow focus. I sold it falling prey to the never ending buying/selling that many of us gear-addicts face.
This brings me to my current dilemma. I need something at least 300 at the longest. My thought (and experience with my Tokina 300) is that a 300 prime will only be useful in a small handful of situations, but I would assume that the Canon 300/4 would be a bit sharper...but then again, I have seen everything on the web...some instances, the 100-300 actually seems to outperform the 300/4...but then again, the 300/4 is also a nice white L lens (a pride thing?).
The 100-300, on the other hand has the same f/4, and has added versatility. Again, it seems to be pretty close to the 300/4. I've also read that the HSM is just as fast as USM. If I have pride issues with this not being a nice white lens...this one looks bigger with its huge hood (so...macho pride thing doesn't matter...bigger is better, right )
I'll be on the sidelines with a monopod...so weight isn't an issue. For you guys who have used both, what would you recommend.
I'm buying used, and only have $700-900 to spend. These are really the only 2 I'm considering, and although I appreciate other suggestions, I'd like to keep this thread to the point...(I'd love the Sigma 120-300/2.8, or 300/4 IS...but well out of budget).
I'd love any suggestions. If the performance is that close, I'm leaning toward the 100-300, but I don't have any real experience with either.
Thanks
-Jeff
p.s. I shoot with a 30Dw/grip, My other lenses include a sigma 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8 and the orig. digital rebel kit lens. I've got very limited access to a school owned Canon 70-200/2.8 (non IS), but its usually being used elsewhere when I am shooting.
I just finished noodling through the same decision last week and I choose the 300 F4, though I would think the 100-300 might be best for you. Let me explain. Prior to it's theft I had a Sigma 100-300 and it was great. My only dislike was that the damn thing was huge and with the hood it was even larger. The lens was sharp and focus was fast and spot on. I just picked up a 300 F4 last week as it was to me the right balance between reach, size, and cost. The 300 F4 is truly amazing and I am already crazy about it, but if the size is not an issue the versatility of the Sigma may serve you well, if not better. While I would have to give the Canon a slight advantage in the sharpness catagory, the Sigma was still wonderful and the build quality is L like in all but color.
I had the Sigma 100-300, which I then replaced with the Canon 70-200/4L + 300/4L. Later, I sold the 70-200/4L and now have only the 300/4L.
Optically, the Sigma is great - sharpness and contrast are on par with the Ls.
If you are going to be using the lens in broad daylight only, it's a better choice than the Ls. However, the lack of IS limits its usability in low light. That's what made me switch to the 300/4L, which I use mostly for wildlife. The 300/4L is also lighter and handles better.
IMHO the IS in the 300/4 makes it a no-brainer. Sharp pictures at 1/60? No problem. Unless you will constantly be shooting in bright daylight or with tripod/monopod you will quickly find the IS benefits. And yes, I saw that you wrote about monopod but I wonder if this will be the only way you'd be using it.
The 300 f/4 ( i've used the IS version) gives much better IQ than the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. I've had both the 300 IS and the Sigma and while the Sigma has an awesome focal length range, the quality of the 300 prime is something else.
Here is a sample from the 300mm f/4 IS taken during the initial phases of my photography hobby. I'm sure others here can provide much better samples.
I have the Sigma 100-300, which I sold my 300F4 to get. I had them both for about a week and did some comparisons. The L is a little sharper at 300, but the Sigma sharpness peaks around 280. Stopped down to 5.6, and they are nearly equal. The L's contrast is also a little better. I also have a 70-200 2.8/IS, the Sigma is just as sharp as the L zoom. Strangley, I've found the 100-300 takes my 1.4TC (Sigma EX version) better than the L, I never liked the results of the 300 + 1.4, but am getting good results from the 100-300 +1.4.
AF speed, the prime is a touch faster, but the Sigma is equal to the 70-200. BTW, I'm shooting with a 30D and a 1dmk2.
Size, yes I miss the size of the prime, but the 100-300 is not much bigger (more differnce in weight), but I ussualy shoot with a monopod, so that is not much of an issue.
I owned the 300 f/4 back when I was doing a lot of wildlife photography and it was a great lens. I just picked up a 100-300 and so far I am very happy with it. Using it for horse shows, outdoors, usually good light. The versatility of the 100-300 makes it a keeper for what I am doing. Not as sharp or as good on contrast as the 300 f/4, but no slouch at all. My copy is an older one that I picked up here on the B&S for $550. At that price a very handy lens indeed.
A couple posts talk about IS, its nice but really not critical to sports. And by the way, my 300 f/4 was a fair bit sharped then my 300 f/4 IS, maybe sample variation, but noticeable difference between the two.
For me the flexibility outweighs some loss of IQ and makes the 100-300 a good compromise.
Jeff_Stapleton wrote:
Thanks for all the replies. I must have mis-communicated a bit. If I do get the 300/4, it will NOT be the IS version. My budget would not allow it.
And most of my shooting will be daytime sports...and will mostly be with a monopod.
In that case I think that the zoom will be better.
Yakim and others are right. The zoom will be better. I have it and it's very sharp. But have been a little disappointed with the Sigma 1.4 TC. The photos keep coming out way too soft.
)