just different impressions I suppose, there's always a chance it was a bad copy of the lens, it was a rental, so it being slightly abused is to be expected I suppose.
I rented the sig for one weekend, then the next weekend I rented the Nikon 70-200 and found that I had much better results with the Nikon, and ended up purchasing the Nikon the next week. The real issue I had with this copy of the Sig was that it was constantly seeking while attempting to lock on to moving targets, even with single point AF I was having major seeking issues...again, could have been a single copy issue...it did appear to be a little bit on the well used side.
I definitely agree that the 120-300 is a beast lol...but I've hand held both the 200-400 F4 and the 300mm 2.8 so I guess it's all relative. As an aside, if you try to tell me the Sig focuses as fast as a 300 2.8 I will know you're talkin out of your hat...lol.
If you have good inside access to the track, you can do very well with a 70-200/4L IS
(also as a side note, this and hundreds more were taken on that day with a 30D, which should be impossible according to a lot of whiners!)
If you don't have that kind of access to the track then you'll need more reach, and then your selection will depend on your budget. I can tell you the 100-400L does very well in good light.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The best lenses for sports shooting are the F2.8 lenses, but those are not always financially possible. The F4 copies aren't terribly bad alternatives, especially given the price.
The Bigma 50-500 is another solid contender but it is not good in low light conditions.
Basically, for your needs you should probably be checking out the 100-400 or the 300 F4 if money is a big factor.
Also, going to a better/faster body could give you the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and get a better frame rate in low light but in the short term a new lens would probably be best.
And don't forget -- you can always rent gear before you buy
I have another question, almost the same as this thread. I want to know the best lens to rent for Spring Training Major League Baseball in Arizona (mostly day games). Do I still need an F2.8? I'm thinking zoom because I only have one body now. And yes, Borrow Lens is at the top of my list. I'm definately going to rent for about 2-3 weeks.
I have another question, almost the same as this thread. I want to know the best lens to rent for Spring Training Major League Baseball in Arizona (mostly day games). Do I still need an F2.8? I'm thinking zoom because I only have one body now. And yes, Borrow Lens is at the top of my list. I'm definately going to rent for about 2-3 weeks.
The real advantage to a f/2.8 is the broche, or the blurred background. The disadvantage is the additional weight.
Canon 50D and 2x T2i's // 2x 580ex II // FlexTT5's & MiniTT1's
EFS 17-55 f/2.8 & 10-22 // Sigma 30mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4
Sigma Bigma OS // Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8
I have another question, almost the same as this thread. I want to know the best lens to rent for Spring Training Major League Baseball in Arizona (mostly day games). Do I still need an F2.8? I'm thinking zoom because I only have one body now. And yes, Borrow Lens is at the top of my list. I'm definately going to rent for about 2-3 weeks.
If you *must* obliterate the background, then yes, you need an f/2.8, and ideally a 300mm or 400mm prime for the reach. I've read that the combination of a 70-200/2.8 with a teleconverter only gets not-so-thrilling results. Otherwise, the combination of zoom, reach, and IQ of the 100-400L can't be beat for daytime games.
Not that this is a great shot, but it gives you an idea of the IQ and bokeh at 400mm and f/5.6 on a 5DII:
just different impressions I suppose, there's always a chance it was a bad copy of the lens, it was a rental, so it being slightly abused is to be expected I suppose.
I rented the sig for one weekend, then the next weekend I rented the Nikon 70-200 and found that I had much better results with the Nikon, and ended up purchasing the Nikon the next week. The real issue I had with this copy of the Sig was that it was constantly seeking while attempting to lock on to moving targets, even with single point AF I was having major seeking issues...again, could have been a single copy issue...it did appear to be a little bit on the well used side.
I definitely agree that the 120-300 is a beast lol...but I've hand held both the 200-400 F4 and the 300mm 2.8 so I guess it's all relative. As an aside, if you try to tell me the Sig focuses as fast as a 300 2.8 I will know you're talkin out of your hat...lol.
Have a look at this guy's galleries. He's a pro sports photographer down here, and his lens of choice for sporting events is the Sigma 120-300...
Comments
I rented the sig for one weekend, then the next weekend I rented the Nikon 70-200 and found that I had much better results with the Nikon, and ended up purchasing the Nikon the next week. The real issue I had with this copy of the Sig was that it was constantly seeking while attempting to lock on to moving targets, even with single point AF I was having major seeking issues...again, could have been a single copy issue...it did appear to be a little bit on the well used side.
I definitely agree that the 120-300 is a beast lol...but I've hand held both the 200-400 F4 and the 300mm 2.8 so I guess it's all relative. As an aside, if you try to tell me the Sig focuses as fast as a 300 2.8 I will know you're talkin out of your hat...lol.
(also as a side note, this and hundreds more were taken on that day with a 30D, which should be impossible according to a lot of whiners!)
If you don't have that kind of access to the track then you'll need more reach, and then your selection will depend on your budget. I can tell you the 100-400L does very well in good light.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
SmugMug: www.randyjacksonimages.com
Email: randyjacksonimages@cox.net
Photography Blog: http://randyonphotography.com
The real advantage to a f/2.8 is the broche, or the blurred background. The disadvantage is the additional weight.
EFS 17-55 f/2.8 & 10-22 // Sigma 30mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4
Sigma Bigma OS // Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8
If you *must* obliterate the background, then yes, you need an f/2.8, and ideally a 300mm or 400mm prime for the reach. I've read that the combination of a 70-200/2.8 with a teleconverter only gets not-so-thrilling results. Otherwise, the combination of zoom, reach, and IQ of the 100-400L can't be beat for daytime games.
Not that this is a great shot, but it gives you an idea of the IQ and bokeh at 400mm and f/5.6 on a 5DII:
another:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Friends/Skating-2010/10911175_vyiEg#761823522_pEsrC-X3-LB
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Have a look at this guy's galleries. He's a pro sports photographer down here, and his lens of choice for sporting events is the Sigma 120-300...
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers