sigma 120-300 f/2.8 vs canon 70-200 f/2.8

windoze

ok, i have a canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and I used my ex canon 1.4TC to shoot soccer. By all accounts most people would think my IQ is good ( my composition is not the point here ), but i wasnt satisfied.... so im debating keeping this really $$ Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. At first i thought it was soft. many of my initial images were OOF. so i tested it on soccer. the following two pics look to me to be representative of my past image quality w/ the canon and what i seem to be getting with the sigma . my question is .. is the difference significant enough to justify the extra lens and does anyone think that the sigma looks soft??
since i have no normal / standard workflow the post processing is probably different on these two images.

which looks better to you?

an uncontrolled test: two weeks apart!



canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS w/ 1.4 TC
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 280mm (guess: 435mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.0005s (1/2000)
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: Action program




Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Aperture: f/3.2
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 300mm (guess: 318mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.0006s (1/1600)
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: Action program




troy

pathfinder

Troy,

You shot the Canon at f5.6 and the Sigma at f3.2. Not a fair comparison at all.

You shot hand held also didn't you??

The Sigma is not IS of course, so does better from a tripod or monopod, and 300mm is more demanding of technique than is 200mm.

I own both of these lenses ( well, Nightingale owns the 120-300 but lets me use it from time to time ) and I think they both are excellent if used with careful technique.

Try shooting the Sigma from a tripod to check its optical quality - Keep your shutter speed above 1/500th if you are hand holding it. ( I see that you did that ) I agree that your second image seem slightly soft and less contrasty than the Canon.

For soccor the extra reach of the Sigma will be appreciated I submit.

Scott_Quier

Troy,

I believe these photos present too many variables to justify any kind of "this lens is better" type statement. If all things were equal here, I would say the "canon" image is sharper, more contrasty, better color, and more saturated. But they are not. Different processing, different effective aperature, different light, etc.

Now for something I know you know ... I might suggest you take both lens out and shoot a static target with the same effective aperature, ISO, shutter speed. Do something like Ziggy does all the time, shoot the end of his street. Do this with the camera is mounted on a sturdy tripod and with MLU is engaged. Then, convert the RAW to JPG with NO processing. Post 100% crops from a representative corner and the center. This will remove as many of the variables as possible from the equation.

claudermilk

I think the 120-300 at f3.2 is about the same setting as the 70-200 + 1.4x at f5.6 --remember that it cannot go to f2.8 any more, so they're stopped down about one stop from wide open.

Anyway, both are good shots. Considering the uncontrolled nature of the comparison, they are essentially equal.

I have both lenses on my wishlist.

windoze

Scott_Quier wrote:

Troy,

I believe these photos present too many variables to justify any kind of "this lens is better" type statement. If all things were equal here, I would say the "canon" image is sharper, more contrasty, better color, and more saturated. But they are not. Different processing, different effective aperature, different light, etc.

Now for something I know you know ... I might suggest you take both lens out and shoot a static target with the same effective aperature, ISO, shutter speed. Do something like Ziggy does all the time, shoot the end of his street. Do this with the camera is mounted on a sturdy tripod and with MLU is engaged. Then, convert the RAW to JPG with NO processing. Post 100% crops from a representative corner and the center. This will remove as many of the variables as possible from the equation.

Hi Scott !

I never asked which lens is better or i tried not to ask that because i know that each one of these lenses in skilled hands is a professional top notch lens! What i was trying to ask is really two fold: does the Sigma seem soft and do "you" ( meaning anybody ) see a noticeable difference in these the quality of these images. I do, but my eye is untrained. The ones from the sigma look more "pleasing" to me. As a matter of fact i think the sigma is more contrasty but Pathfinder says its the other way around. goes to show what i know..........
your advice on how to tell if it is sharp is a good one, now only if i can follow that advice..... maybe "Andy" can test it for me???

thanx for the help Scott - its appreciated!


troy

mercphoto

windoze wrote:

What i was trying to ask is really two fold: does the Sigma seem soft and do "you" ( meaning anybody ) see a noticeable difference in these the quality of these images.

Hard to say about soft. You shot one at f/5.6 (lots of depth of field), one at f/3.2 (much less depth of field, which could be confused for softness). That said, I really don't think a 70-200 is a suitable lens for field sports in general, not enough reach. If you want a really sharp lens I'd suggest a used Canon 300/2.8. Most people don't seem to use (or need) a zoom for field sports anyway. I'm sorry I ever sold my 300/2.8. :cry

kini62

As an amature and not a very good one at that

I think the Sigma shot looks better. At this reduced size it's hard to tell but I think it's as sharp or sharper in some areas.

As for the Canon being more saturated and contrasty it looks to have been shot in bright sunlight adding to the contrast and saturation and blown highlights:D

The Sigma shot seems to have been taken on a overcast day with flat light causing the saturation and contrast to appear as they do.

I have a friend with the same setup and the 1.4TC doesn't seem to add much reach in reality.

I'd go for the 120-300 with the 1.4TC. I think this would give you a very nice setup with good reach as well as the convenience of having the zoom.

Gene

gluwater

kini62 wrote:

As for the Canon being more saturated and contrasty it looks to have been shot in bright sunlight adding to the contrast and saturation and blown highlights:D

The Sigma shot seems to have been taken on a overcast day with flat light causing the saturation and contrast to appear as they do.

Gene