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

[Luke345678]

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 .

Thanks for your awesome reply. Made a new thread for my new dilemma but I think this helped me make my final decision. I appreciate it.

 

[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

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.

Think of it in terms of a long term investment. If you just need a little extra reach for now then the tc is probably your best bet.

If your planning on continuing a career shooting sports even part time then investing in a 300 2.8 might be a good thing over the long haul.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk