Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 vs 70-200mm f2.8 teleconference

[Luke345678]

Hello there friends,

I hope everyone is doing well. I just have a quick question that I'd love your guys insight on.

I currently shoot High School sports for a few local papers and my own site throughout my county which is an awesome job that pays well for someone in their Senior year of High School. For those of you that may know me and have seen me around, I've been doing this for three years now and love it. I bought a 1dx about a year ago and have been using it along with my Canon 70-200mm f2.8 to shoot just about everything. Obviously, I'd rather have a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens from canon but as a High School student, I've made it my priority to save about 85-90% of my earnings. I know, it seems extreme but college is around the corner!

I have decided I want to spend a bit of money but I'm not really willing to drop 3.5k for a used 300mm f2.8 canon lens. This is my senior year and I'm not sure how much use it will get while I'm in college. It would be too much basically. I've recently been turned onto the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens which has stunning reviews everywhere I've bee looking. From what I've read, the lens compares quite well alongside the fixed 300mm from canon.

I found a trusted seller that is willing to part with his old one for around $1,100. I am super tempted to do this but it is my understanding that lenses that have an adjustable focal length are slower to focus and not as sharp as a fixed focus length. Does anyone know if it's a huge downgrade or relatively close. I find myself having to crop a lot of my shots from the canon 70-200mm f2.8 so I figure it will at least be a bit better than those.

I've also looked at a 2x extender for my 70-200mm. I know I'd lose some fstop which sucks but would it be better to just focus on touching those up in lightroom or make sure I maintain that f2.8 capability and go for the sigma lens.

Thanks,

Luke

 

[PaulWog]

Just to check, you are aware that there are two Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lenses right? The old one and the new one.

I would be wary of which reviews you are looking at. Don't mix reviews for the new Sigma with the old one. In addition to that, don't entirely go by old reviews. Old reviews are old, so anything they say may be dated.

 

[spiralout462]

Canon 300 f4?

 

[robbins.photo]

Hello there friends,

I hope everyone is doing well. I just have a quick question that I'd love your guys insight on.

I currently shoot High School sports for a few local papers and my own site throughout my county which is an awesome job that pays well for someone in their Senior year of High School. For those of you that may know me and have seen me around, I've been doing this for three years now and love it. I bought a 1dx about a year ago and have been using it along with my Canon 70-200mm f2.8 to shoot just about everything. Obviously, I'd rather have a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens from canon but as a High School student, I've made it my priority to save about 85-90% of my earnings. I know, it seems extreme but college is around the corner!

I have decided I want to spend a bit of money but I'm not really willing to drop 3.5k for a used 300mm f2.8 canon lens. This is my senior year and I'm not sure how much use it will get while I'm in college. It would be too much basically. I've recently been turned onto the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens which has stunning reviews everywhere I've bee looking. From what I've read, the lens compares quite well alongside the fixed 300mm from canon.

I found a trusted seller that is willing to part with his old one for around $1,100. I am super tempted to do this but it is my understanding that lenses that have an adjustable focal length are slower to focus and not as sharp as a fixed focus length. Does anyone know if it's a huge downgrade or relatively close. I find myself having to crop a lot of my shots from the canon 70-200mm f2.8 so I figure it will at least be a bit better than those.

I've also looked at a 2x extender for my 70-200mm. I know I'd lose some fstop which sucks but would it be better to just focus on touching those up in lightroom or make sure I maintain that f2.8 capability and go for the sigma lens.

Thanks,

Luke

You might want to consider a 1.4x TC for your 70-200mm instead. A good quality 1.4x will give you 280mm at F4 and the impact on image quality is negligible. The 2x TC's on the other hand are more of a mixed bag, they tend to slow down the AF in certain situations and the IQ can get iffy at times.

I use a 1.4x with an old Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, and honestly I can't see much if any difference in the final results without pixel peeping the snot out of it and specifically searching for it.

This was shot with my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 with a sigma 1.4x TC attached wide open at F4, at 280mm:

20160806_1730 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The advantage of the TC over a separate lens is added flexibility, you can add the TC in when you need a bit more reach or remove it if you need 2.8.

Just a thought. Hope that helps.

 

[table1349]

Hello there friends,

I hope everyone is doing well. I just have a quick question that I'd love your guys insight on.

I currently shoot High School sports for a few local papers and my own site throughout my county which is an awesome job that pays well for someone in their Senior year of High School. For those of you that may know me and have seen me around, I've been doing this for three years now and love it. I bought a 1dx about a year ago and have been using it along with my Canon 70-200mm f2.8 to shoot just about everything. Obviously, I'd rather have a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens from canon but as a High School student, I've made it my priority to save about 85-90% of my earnings. I know, it seems extreme but college is around the corner!

I have decided I want to spend a bit of money but I'm not really willing to drop 3.5k for a used 300mm f2.8 canon lens. This is my senior year and I'm not sure how much use it will get while I'm in college. It would be too much basically. I've recently been turned onto the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens which has stunning reviews everywhere I've bee looking. From what I've read, the lens compares quite well alongside the fixed 300mm from canon.

I found a trusted seller that is willing to part with his old one for around $1,100. I am super tempted to do this but it is my understanding that lenses that have an adjustable focal length are slower to focus and not as sharp as a fixed focus length. Does anyone know if it's a huge downgrade or relatively close. I find myself having to crop a lot of my shots from the canon 70-200mm f2.8 so I figure it will at least be a bit better than those.

I've also looked at a 2x extender for my 70-200mm. I know I'd lose some fstop which sucks but would it be better to just focus on touching those up in lightroom or make sure I maintain that f2.8 capability and go for the sigma lens.

Thanks,

Luke

My question for you would be at this point, why? You are not sure that you will get that much use out of it after this year with college approaching. If this is a paying gig then you might want to consider it, but I think that you need to consider if the lens will pay for itself before you go off to college.

If this is not a paying gig, I would suggest you get by with what you have and put all your money toward college. Once you are out and have a career it is much easier to pay for a hobby.

As for quality/speed. I can't talk about the first version, but I have had an occasion to use the new version that a friend of mine owns. It was on my 1Dx MkII. It's focus was fast and the sharpness was good. When I say it was good keep in mind that it was as good as I was going to get as my friend has the USP dock and had dialed it in for his 1Dx MkII Photos from his camera are quite sharp and from mine very definitely quite useable. I still prefer my 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 for sports. They are razor sharp.

 

[coastalconn]

Just to check, you are aware that there are two Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lenses right? The old one and the new one.

I would be wary of which reviews you are looking at. Don't mix reviews for the new Sigma with the old one. In addition to that, don't entirely go by old reviews. Old reviews are old, so anything they say may be dated.

There are actually 4 versions...
EX - Sigma will not touch anymore
EX DG - added new coatings and the ability to flash firmware to some models. They may or may not touch this lens also.
EX DG OS Only on the market less than 2 years and quickly replaced by the sport. Prone to AF motor failure. Lensrentals Repair Data: January – July 2012 AVG time between failures 13 weeks
EX DG OS sport. Awesomeness and very expensive...

 

[Gary A.]

For Sports/News photography it should be absolutely fine especially if the end use is the Internet or printed small for a periodical. Because of the shear size of the lens, it isn't very practical for indoor/non-sports news photography. The zoom range is almost perfect for large pitch events (soccer, football, baseball). As a former news photog, and in consideration of your finances, I'd say yes.

 

[Overread]

There are 3 versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 that I'm aware of.
1) The Original
2) The New with OS
3) The New + USB dock (optically the same as the previous version the USB dock is the only new feature).

I own the new version before the USB dock came into being. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII.

Side by side the 70-200mm is the kind of lens you can pick up at the start of the day and put down at the end and comfortably having shot handheld all day. The 120-300mm is MUCH heavier and bigger and as such is the kind of lens that makes you want a monopod/tripod for some support through the day (depending on your own fitness level of course).
The 120-300mm is also heavier than the Canon 300mm f2.8 so there is that also to consider.

In general I would say that the focusing speed and optical quality of the 120-300mm are great; its not "as" fast as the 70-200mm to focus but its no slouch and can easily keep up with most sports so long as you're good at what you're doing. I will say if given teh choice I do reach for the 70-200mm more so; but then much of what I've more recently shot is indoor where a longer focal length can be of benefit but most times the shorter was all I needed. Outside or in larger areas the 120-300mm shines as it gives you that greater reach.

However if you have both you will generally use one or the other - you might consider that if you have a second body a 70-200mm and a 300mm on two bodies is a very strong combo to use; giving you the bonus of a prime but with the back-up versatility of the zoom at the same time.

Of course the downside is that those 300mm f2.8 primes are very expensive and thus the 120-300mm can be a heavy but good stop-gap to cover that range. IT can take a 1.4 TC well and is a bout on par with a 2*TC with the 70-200mm MII (which is to day it won't ever beat the primes; but it does decently well).

 

[table1349]

It is definitely a monopod lens when shooting sports

 

[beagle100]

It is definitely a monopod lens when shooting sports

yeah all the longer f2.8 telephotos are heavy, even the f/4

 

[Luke345678]

There are 3 versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 that I'm aware of.
1) The Original
2) The New with OS
3) The New + USB dock (optically the same as the previous version the USB dock is the only new feature).

I own the new version before the USB dock came into being. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII.

Side by side the 70-200mm is the kind of lens you can pick up at the start of the day and put down at the end and comfortably having shot handheld all day. The 120-300mm is MUCH heavier and bigger and as such is the kind of lens that makes you want a monopod/tripod for some support through the day (depending on your own fitness level of course).
The 120-300mm is also heavier than the Canon 300mm f2.8 so there is that also to consider.

In general I would say that the focusing speed and optical quality of the 120-300mm are great; its not "as" fast as the 70-200mm to focus but its no slouch and can easily keep up with most sports so long as you're good at what you're doing. I will say if given teh choice I do reach for the 70-200mm more so; but then much of what I've more recently shot is indoor where a longer focal length can be of benefit but most times the shorter was all I needed. Outside or in larger areas the 120-300mm shines as it gives you that greater reach.

However if you have both you will generally use one or the other - you might consider that if you have a second body a 70-200mm and a 300mm on two bodies is a very strong combo to use; giving you the bonus of a prime but with the back-up versatility of the zoom at the same time.

Of course the downside is that those 300mm f2.8 primes are very expensive and thus the 120-300mm can be a heavy but good stop-gap to cover that range. IT can take a 1.4 TC well and is a bout on par with a 2*TC with the 70-200mm MII (which is to day it won't ever beat the primes; but it does decently well).

So I think I've decided on getting a TC for now... would you recommend the x1.4 or x2? Thanks!

 

[PaulWog]

So I think I've decided on getting a TC for now... would you recommend the x1.4 or x2? Thanks!

It is my opinion that 1.4x is your best option. It's cheaper, and the results will be better. First of all, you'll have more flexibility with aperture (2x will really slow your lens down & make you push ISO). Also, you'll already be pushing your lens to its max with a 1.4x teleconverter. You can just digitally crop after the fact with a 1.4x. With a 2x, you'll be going beyond what your lens can resolve on a 20mp+ sensor, so you won't really be able to crop much.

 

[robbins.photo]

There are 3 versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 that I'm aware of.
1) The Original
2) The New with OS
3) The New + USB dock (optically the same as the previous version the USB dock is the only new feature).

I own the new version before the USB dock came into being. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII.

Side by side the 70-200mm is the kind of lens you can pick up at the start of the day and put down at the end and comfortably having shot handheld all day. The 120-300mm is MUCH heavier and bigger and as such is the kind of lens that makes you want a monopod/tripod for some support through the day (depending on your own fitness level of course).
The 120-300mm is also heavier than the Canon 300mm f2.8 so there is that also to consider.

In general I would say that the focusing speed and optical quality of the 120-300mm are great; its not "as" fast as the 70-200mm to focus but its no slouch and can easily keep up with most sports so long as you're good at what you're doing. I will say if given teh choice I do reach for the 70-200mm more so; but then much of what I've more recently shot is indoor where a longer focal length can be of benefit but most times the shorter was all I needed. Outside or in larger areas the 120-300mm shines as it gives you that greater reach.

However if you have both you will generally use one or the other - you might consider that if you have a second body a 70-200mm and a 300mm on two bodies is a very strong combo to use; giving you the bonus of a prime but with the back-up versatility of the zoom at the same time.

Of course the downside is that those 300mm f2.8 primes are very expensive and thus the 120-300mm can be a heavy but good stop-gap to cover that range. IT can take a 1.4 TC well and is a bout on par with a 2*TC with the 70-200mm MII (which is to day it won't ever beat the primes; but it does decently well).

So I think I've decided on getting a TC for now... would you recommend the x1.4 or x2? Thanks!

1.4, hands down. The iq drop off on the 1.4 is barely noticeable, the 2x it's more pronounced. Also the 2x isn't much good on anything other than a 2.8 unless you've got really good lighting. Otherwise your AF gets dodgy on most lenses.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Luke345678]

There are 3 versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 that I'm aware of.
1) The Original
2) The New with OS
3) The New + USB dock (optically the same as the previous version the USB dock is the only new feature).

I own the new version before the USB dock came into being. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII.

Side by side the 70-200mm is the kind of lens you can pick up at the start of the day and put down at the end and comfortably having shot handheld all day. The 120-300mm is MUCH heavier and bigger and as such is the kind of lens that makes you want a monopod/tripod for some support through the day (depending on your own fitness level of course).
The 120-300mm is also heavier than the Canon 300mm f2.8 so there is that also to consider.

In general I would say that the focusing speed and optical quality of the 120-300mm are great; its not "as" fast as the 70-200mm to focus but its no slouch and can easily keep up with most sports so long as you're good at what you're doing. I will say if given teh choice I do reach for the 70-200mm more so; but then much of what I've more recently shot is indoor where a longer focal length can be of benefit but most times the shorter was all I needed. Outside or in larger areas the 120-300mm shines as it gives you that greater reach.

However if you have both you will generally use one or the other - you might consider that if you have a second body a 70-200mm and a 300mm on two bodies is a very strong combo to use; giving you the bonus of a prime but with the back-up versatility of the zoom at the same time.

Of course the downside is that those 300mm f2.8 primes are very expensive and thus the 120-300mm can be a heavy but good stop-gap to cover that range. IT can take a 1.4 TC well and is a bout on par with a 2*TC with the 70-200mm MII (which is to day it won't ever beat the primes; but it does decently well).

So I think I've decided on getting a TC for now... would you recommend the x1.4 or x2? Thanks!

1.4, hands down. The iq drop off on the 1.4 is barely noticeable, the 2x it's more pronounced. Also the 2x isn't much good on anything other than a 2.8 unless you've got really good lighting. Otherwise your AF gets dodgy on most lenses.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Awesome. Last question, I promise! I got a good contract and have a decent amount of money to spend. Debating whether to drop around 3.5k on a 300mm f2.8 IS lens or 6k on the 300mm f2.8 IS II lens or just go for the 1.4 converter for my 70-200mm f2.8. Any thoughts or preferences?

Thanks again.

 

[Overread]

Honestly I would say throw caution to the wind and get the 300mm f2.8 L IS II - just because it a stella lens that will take a 2*TC and in the future give you a 600mm that is modest in weight (compared to the full 600mm primes). I say that only because its my experience that as time goes on money can get tighter for such high expenses. Further such a lens will keep its value so if you hit hard times you can still sell it on and make a very solid profit - even if the lens updates (in fact some of those L lenses that got new versions sent their second hand market for original version up to values as much as when they were brand new).

That's my view and what I would do if I were you - then again I've had my eye on the 300mm primes for a long long time now so I'm probably terribly biased.



In the end if you can drop the money on the MII lens chances are you can throw 1.4TC into the deal for a modest cost increase ontop of the lens and have the best of both worlds at your finger tips (plus a 420mm f4 prime with the TC).



THAT said the original 300mm is still a very good lens that will also take a 2*TC and was and still is a solid workhorse of a lens. Sure its not top of the line but its still only a generation back so its more than capable of standing up and holding its weight for less cost than the new version.



In the end its really down to you and you've got to weigh up the costs and the pros and cons yourself. You're into money where you can consider getting a car or other serious purchases with the money so that might well be the kind of thing you need to think about alongside this choice; what else that is important that you might well have a greater need of.
But in the end you've got to make that choice yourself .