Sigma 100-300 F4 - Need your opinions!

Fogcity

Please let me know what you think. I shoot a lot of soccer and baseball and have an opportunity (which may just be for today) to purchase a used Sigma 100-300 F4 Nikon mount for $750. Of course, money is tight, but I can probably stretch to make it. I'd also like a second camera body (I have a D300) so that would probably be what I'd get if I don't get the Sigma. I am ultimately trying to step up to having as professional a set up as I can, but can't afford $3K+ lenses or camera bodies (yet I do have a commitment to our baseball league in the spring to shoot action shots for their games, so I want to be prepared and as professional as possible.

I have a Nikon 300 F4 which I love, and use almost exclusively for soccer, unless the lighting is poor and I switch to my 80-200 2.8. I don't like the way the pictures come out with the 1.4tc on the 2.8, but will use it at times.

So my question is, do you think I should just be happy with my prime and not worry about the 100-300 range and just use the 80-200 for baseball (and occasionally the prime to get the kids in the outfield and/or the tc) OR would I be better off with the 100-300, which I've read good things about. If I get that, I'm sure it wouldn't be as sharp wide open at 300 as the prime, but I can't see how I can justify the cost of keeping both (but I love that 300 f4!).

Or should I blow all this off, stick with the lenses I have and get another camera body (used D300) as a backup.

Any help is MUCH appreciated, on a bit of a deadline to decide.....

tjk60

unless you are truly event shooting, where if you lose a camera you lose your 'job', I'm not sure how much you would use another camera. OTOH, you have pretty much all the range of the sigma in what you have. 80-200 and 300. pretty close.

I'd personally save towards a 300 2.8 (love mine) or the Sigma 120-300 and if you a sports shooter you always need low light gear for indoors (D700 or a 35 f/1.8 for your D300, etc)

Dbl

When I started shooting college baseball about 8 years ago it was the first lens I used. A few things to be aware of. I shoot Canon and this lens in the Canon mount had some focus issues. I in fact had three lenses in 3 months and never did get one that focused correctly. The Nikon version is supposed to be more reliable in this regard.

IQ was very nice on this lens. I really liked the colors and sharpness (when it focused properly). The focal length is perfect for a one camera body set up. You really can do a nice job covering much of the field. You are already aware of the f4 limitations on shooting when the light drops.

All that said I shoot soccer and baseball with a 300/2.8 often with a 1.4TC. On a second body I have a 70-200/2.8. And if I am in the mood I will shoot a third with a wide angle or set as a remote.

If it was me I would stick with what you have and add that second body. You now have a nice focal length combination with two bodies and if you have an issue with one body you will have a backup to keep shooting with. To me that is the most professional way to approach your situation. If you made a commitment to cover a league you want to make sure you have a camera body to do that.

Parents are not going to see a difference in whether or not you shot with a 100-300, 300/f4 or 80-200. They just want a good shot of their athlete! Good luck with your decision.

Fogcity

Dbl wrote:

All that said I shoot soccer and baseball with a 300/2.8 often with a 1.4TC. On a second body I have a 70-200/2.8. And if I am in the mood I will shoot a third with a wide angle or set as a remote.

If it was me I would stick with what you have and add that second body. You now have a nice focal length combination with two bodies and if you have an issue with one body you will have a backup to keep shooting with. To me that is the most professional way to approach your situation. If you made a commitment to cover a league you want to make sure you have a camera body to do that.

Parents are not going to see a difference in whether or not you shot with a 100-300, 300/f4 or 80-200. They just want a good shot of their athlete! Good luck with your decision.

Thanks for your response! How often do you find yourself, in full light, using the 70-200 for soccer or is it mostly too short and you use the 300 most of the time? I can see using both lens for baseball and like the idea of a two body set up. I do have a business commitment to the baseball league. I also do a lot of low light indoor sports like basketball and I'd like the D700 for that (crank up the budget again). Do you ever put your 1.4tc on the 70-200? I've tried on my 80-200 but don't like the results... Used the tc on the 300 and felt nauseous trying to find the kids on the field, but maybe that's just me and I need more practice! !

Fogcity

tjk60 wrote:

unless you are truly event shooting, where if you lose a camera you lose your 'job', I'm not sure how much you would use another camera. OTOH, you have pretty much all the range of the sigma in what you have. 80-200 and 300. pretty close.

I'd personally save towards a 300 2.8 (love mine) or the Sigma 120-300 and if you a sports shooter you always need low light gear for indoors (D700 or a 35 f/1.8 for your D300, etc)

Thanks! Well, I am contracted for basketball and baseball leagues, so I guess that is truly event shooting. Although if I missed a game I could always shoot the next one, seems like a second body is getting important.

The 300 2.8 is on my list, but won't happen for a while. The 120-300 sounds like a good choice too--have you used it and/or like the quality? That price range is a bit much for me right now though. I already use an 85 1.8 a lot for basketball on the D300 which I love.

If I go for the second body, would you recommend the D700 for the low light or budget-wise another D300 would do the job just fine? Not sure about whether the format change to the D700 would be great for the focal lengths I'm trying to achieve as well, although I know the camera itself is superior.

Sound like I'm going to have to start slinging around two bodies with the 300 and 80-200 then...maybe the Sigma isn't the quick fix to that situation I was hoping it would be.

Zone99

Fogcity wrote:

Please let me know what you think. I shoot a lot of soccer and baseball and have an opportunity (which may just be for today) to purchase a used Sigma 100-300 F4 Nikon mount for $750. Of course, money is tight, but I can probably stretch to make it. I'd also like a second camera body (I have a D300) so that would probably be what I'd get if I don't get the Sigma. I am ultimately trying to step up to having as professional a set up as I can, but can't afford $3K+ lenses or camera bodies (yet I do have a commitment to our baseball league in the spring to shoot action shots for their games, so I want to be prepared and as professional as possible.

I have a Nikon 300 F4 which I love, and use almost exclusively for soccer, unless the lighting is poor and I switch to my 80-200 2.8. I don't like the way the pictures come out with the 1.4tc on the 2.8, but will use it at times.

So my question is, do you think I should just be happy with my prime and not worry about the 100-300 range and just use the 80-200 for baseball (and occasionally the prime to get the kids in the outfield and/or the tc) OR would I be better off with the 100-300, which I've read good things about. If I get that, I'm sure it wouldn't be as sharp wide open at 300 as the prime, but I can't see how I can justify the cost of keeping both (but I love that 300 f4!).

Or should I blow all this off, stick with the lenses I have and get another camera body (used D300) as a backup.

Any help is MUCH appreciated, on a bit of a deadline to decide.....

Fogcity,

Try before you buy. I have used the Sigma 120-400 OS version and I do not like that lens. Shots just are not clear enough.

tjk60

Fogcity wrote:

Thanks! Well, I am contracted for basketball and baseball leagues, so I guess that is truly event shooting. Although if I missed a game I could always shoot the next one, seems like a second body is getting important.

The 300 2.8 is on my list, but won't happen for a while. The 120-300 sounds like a good choice too--have you used it and/or like the quality? That price range is a bit much for me right now though. I already use an 85 1.8 a lot for basketball on the D300 which I love.

If I go for the second body, would you recommend the D700 for the low light or budget-wise another D300 would do the job just fine? Not sure about whether the format change to the D700 would be great for the focal lengths I'm trying to achieve as well, although I know the camera itself is superior.

Sound like I'm going to have to start slinging around two bodies with the 300 and 80-200 then...maybe the Sigma isn't the quick fix to that situation I was hoping it would be.

I know quite a few that have used teh 120-300 as a stepping stone to getting the 300 2.8. This is probably Sigma's finest lens.

The D700 has gotten me out of more light-less caves smelling like a rose than any 1.8 or 1.4 lens could. if you can reach that far, it's a great camera.....

attorneyjay

100-300 f4 YES
I shot 49 high school level baseball games this year. The Sigma 100-300 f4 was my lens for 90% of shots. It is a great lens. Even wide open I don't notice appreciable loss of sharpness. The other 10% of shots I used my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 or weather resistant prime 200mm f2.8 for shots of the pitcher from behind the backstop or for the couple night games or games with inclement weather I shot.

I use two cameras at baseball games so I can leave the 200mm on for shots from behind the backstop, but that's really a convenience issue. Similarly, I use two cameras at volleyball games to avoid changing lenses when shooting from different vantage points. Otherwise, the only time I use two cameras is for basketball games. I use one for near court shots and another for far court shots from the same shooting position, so this is a necessity if I want both types of shots without missing any of the court action.

My camera body is a Pentax K-7.

Jay

Fogcity

attorneyjay wrote:

Otherwise, the only time I use two cameras is for basketball games. I use one for near court shots and another for far court shots from the same shooting position, so this is a necessity if I want both types of shots without missing any of the court action.

My camera body is a Pentax K-7.

Jay

Thanks, all very helpful info! Out of curiousity, when you shoot two setups at basketball games, what lenses are you using?

attorneyjay

Fogcity wrote:

Thanks, all very helpful info! Out of curiousity, when you shoot two setups at basketball games, what lenses are you using?

Usually, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for near shots and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for far court shots. In larger gyms where I can sit farther away from the baseline I use a 50-135mm f2.8 for near shots.

nipprdog

Fogcity wrote:

and just use the 80-200 for baseball (and occasionally the prime to get the kids in the outfield and/or the tc)

Just another opinion....I shot my first season with a 300f4, and the last two with a 300 2.8/1.4 TC. For T-Ball, I shoot without the 1.4TC.

I consider the 80-200 to short for baseball. I only use mine for MX.

I'm a supporter of the "Shooting tight, and mostly in portrait mode" group.

Fogcity

nipprdog wrote:

Just another opinion....I shot my first season with a 300f4, and the last two with a 300 2.8/1.4 TC. For T-Ball, I shoot without the 1.4TC.

I consider the 80-200 to short for baseball. I only use mine for MX.

I'm a supporter of the "Shooting tight, and mostly in portrait mode" group.

Thumbs up to that--I shoot mostly portrait and tight for all my pics. I haven't had an opportunity to use the 300 on baseball yet, but I get the most amazing shots that way with the 300 for soccer. Sure, I miss some that are 3 feet from my face, but others are outstanding. I find more sales for the close up crops than anything else anyways, kind of close-up portraits but with action expressions on their faces.

So if you consider the 200 too short for baseball, that worries me because while the 300 can catch the outfield, what about all the infield plays? I don't think I can stand at third and get the entire batter in the frame with the 300 from the little work I've done with it in baseball? Or maybe just barely....
Makes me reconsider that 100-300....

Fogcity

nipprdog wrote:

Just another opinion....I shot my first season with a 300f4, and the last two with a 300 2.8/1.4 TC. For T-Ball, I shoot without the 1.4TC.

I consider the 80-200 to short for baseball. I only use mine for MX.

I'm a supporter of the "Shooting tight, and mostly in portrait mode" group.

I checked out the sample pics in your sports gallery--were most of those taken with the 300f4? Very impressed, crisp, sharp images, exactly what I'm looking for. Nice

nipprdog

Fogcity wrote:

I don't think I can stand at third and get the entire batter in the frame with the 300 from the little work I've done with it in baseball? Or maybe just barely....
Makes me reconsider that 100-300....

On the contrary. Here's a full frame shot from just beyond first base;



300 2.8 WITH 1.4TC

You'll have no problem getting the batter in the frame at 300mm.

And, yes. Most of those shots were with the 300f4.

Fogcity

nipprdog wrote:

On the contrary. Here's a full frame shot from just beyond first base;

300 2.8 WITH 1.4TC

You'll have no problem getting the batter in the frame at 300mm.

And, yes. Most of those shots were with the 300f4.

Wow, very nice! And if that's with the tc then I should be able to fit the older kids in no problem. I was wondering how you were getting that nice background with the 1.4 tc on the 300F4 until I realized the picture is with a 2.8... *sigh* some day! Good to know about the framing though! I guess I'd need my 80-200 to catch any plays at the base I'm closest to though. I'll look so professional with all that gear slung all around me though (not) !