Sigma 300mm f2.8 or Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

[Smokeyr67]

My Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would be at least 20 years old, has never missed a beat, and is worth about 1/3rd of what I paid for it. Well it would be worth that if I was prepared to sell it, but it's a fantastic bit of glass, so I'll probably be buried with it (unless someone comes out with a 70-200 f2.0)

 

[Smokeyr67]

Managed to get my hands on the 120-300 yesterday, it's just too heavy for me, so I've ordered the 300mm f2.8

 

[LINYBIMMER]

Good luck with the 300 2.8. I'm renting the 120-300 for the weekend and going through the same thought process as you. Since I plan to shoot primarily sports with this focal range, I like the flexibility the 120-300 offers. I've used a 300 2.8 before and while it produced great images, I found it to be somewhat limiting. This weekend will be a good test for me, I'll be shooting college lacrosse at Columbia U and Stony Brook.

I'll let you know what I think.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Thanks LINYBIMMER, I'd love the flexibility of the zoom, but as it's almost 50% heavier it's just not hand holdable for me

 

[LINYBIMMER]

Thanks LINYBIMMER, I'd love the flexibility of the zoom, but as it's almost 50% heavier it's just not hand holdable for me

I agree. I shot some volleyball and soccer as a test. It's a great lens, but not one for hand holding. I used it with a monopod and overall I like it so far. Like you said: HEAVY!